linux-kernel - Re: Btrfs v0.16 released

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:46:01 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Btrfs v0.16 released

On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 21:10 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 19:44 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > > I spent a bunch of time hammering on different ways to fix this without
> > > increasing nr_requests, and it was a mixture of needing better tuning in
> > > btrfs and needing to init mapping->writeback_index on inode allocation.
> > > 
> > > So, today's numbers for creating 30 kernel trees in sequence:
> > > 
> > > Btrfs defaults                  57.41 MB/s
> > > Btrfs dup no csum               74.59 MB/s 
> > > Btrfs no duplication            76.83 MB/s
> > > Btrfs no dup no csum no inline  76.85 MB/s
> > 
> > What sort of script are you using?  Basically something like this?
> > 
> > for i in `seq 1 30` do
> >     mkdir $i; cd $i
> >     tar xjf /usr/src/linux-2.6.28.tar.bz2
> >     cd ..
> > done
> 
> Similar.  I used compilebench -i 30 -r 0, which means create 30 initial
> kernel trees and then do nothing.  compilebench simulates compiles by
> writing to the FS files of the same size that you would get by creating
> kernel trees or compiling them.
> 
> The idea is to get all of the IO without needing to keep 2.6.28.tar.bz2
> in cache or the compiler using up CPU.
> 
> http://www.oracle.com/~mason/compilebench

Whoops the link above is wrong, try:

http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/compilebench

It is worth noting that the end throughput doesn't matter quite as much
as the writeback pattern.  Ext4 is pretty solid on this test, with very
consistent results.

-chris


--
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/