linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.29.1 vs 2.6.27.21 ext4 performance problem

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, 10 Apr 2009 12:36:20 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Alexander V. Lukyanov" <lav@....ru>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.29.1 vs 2.6.27.21 ext4 performance problem

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 07:12:35PM +0400, Alexander V. Lukyanov wrote:
> I have a server that is busy reading and writing several disks with
> ext4 fs.  After booting 2.6.29.1 kernel I have noticed significant
> increase in read rate.  I measure the read rate using a script which
> reads sysfs byte and access counts and calculates average per
> second.

Without knowing exactly what your workload is, it's hard to say for
sure.  One of the things which did go in after 2.6.27 was inode table
readahead.  The intent is to actually improve performance, although at
least initially it might mean a bit more I/O activity.

Does the differences go away if you do echo 0 into
/sys/fs/ext4/<dev>/inode_readahead_blks?

Are you seeing an increase in time, or decrease in transactions per
second, or just that there is is an increase in read rates?

	   	     	      	    	     - Ted
--
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/