Re: Bug#605009: serious performance regression with ext4
(pruned cc list)
Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hmm, ok so what about posix_fadvise(fd, 0, 0, POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED)
> instead, skimming over the kernel source seems to indicate it might
> end up doing more or less the same thing but in a portable way?
Probably a silly question, but what does "The specified data will not
be accessed in the near future" have to do with preventing delayed
allocation?
Put another way: if this works now, is it likely to continue to work?
Reply to: