linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] fat: improve sync performance by grouping writes revised

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:54:46 -0500
From:	"Holden Karau" <holden@...scanfly.ca>
To:	"OGAWA Hirofumi" <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Cc:	"Holden Karau" <holdenk@...dros.com>,
	"Josef Sipek" <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "akpm@...l.org" <akpm@...l.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	"Jörn Engel" <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fat: improve sync performance by grouping writes revised

Keep in mind these results are with a slow external drive, but yah
fat32 sync performance is still really bad.

This patch is just meant to make fat32 sync performance better, not
necessarily make it usable for everyone [one step at a time and all
that]. FAT32 sync is quite slow (see
http://readlist.com/lists/vger.kernel.org/linux-kernel/22/111761.html
), so if you want fast performance [or have drives with limited write
cycles] async is almost definitely the way to go.

I have a patch [not this one] which adds a module param ("fast") which
syncs the FAT tables after 30 seconds of no write activity, but I
don't think the majority of people are interested in it.

On 10/31/06, OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> wrote:
> "Holden Karau" <holden@...scanfly.ca> writes:
>
> > The performance increase is pretty small. Using an old external dirve
> > I had lying around I got:
> > diff -y stock/10k modified/10k
> > 10240+0 records in                                            | 1024+0
> > records in
> > 10240+0 records out                                           | 1024+0
> > records out
> > 5242880 bytes transferred in 18.280922 seconds (286795 bytes/ | 524288
> > bytes transferred in 1.824985 seconds (287283 bytes/se
>
> 1024 records out 1.824985 seconds. Is there decrease case?  I assume
> the result is same. So, we would need different approach.
>
> > diff -y stock/1k modified/1k
> > 1024+0 records in                                               1024+0
> > records in
> > 1024+0 records out                                              1024+0
> > records out
> > 524288 bytes transferred in 1.777250 seconds (295000 bytes/se | 524288
> > bytes transferred in 1.764748 seconds (297089 bytes/se
> --
> OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
>


-- 
Cell: 613-276-1645
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/