From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <c4a4e42cd6bdbe380b7a7fafb6c2ac6e@collyer.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] truncation via wstat on ken's fs
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:38:54 -0700
From: geoff@collyer.net
In-Reply-To: <2d26e403df2c03ed8e41e93d4bc64b2d@terzarima.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f0388350-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

As I recall, it didn't help enough on Unix; a busy system got its free
list scrambled pretty quickly, which was one of Berkeley's arguments
for bitmap allocation.

I'm inclined to free blocks in forward order for wstat truncation,
which ought to be far less common than truncation of existing files
via create, thus minimising any inefficiency.