linux-kernel - Re: Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?

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:	Thu, 30 Apr 2015 03:59:08 -0700
From:	Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
To:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<tux3@...3.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 8:50:57 PM PDT, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 13:40 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>
>> That order of magnitude latency difference is striking. It sounds
>> good, but what does it mean? I see a smaller difference here, maybe
>> because of running under KVM.
>
> That max_latency thing is flush.

Right, it is just the max run time of all operations, including flush
(dbench's name for fsync I think) which would most probably be the longest
running one. I would like to know how we manage to pull that off. Now
that you mention it, I see a factor of two or so latency win here, not
the order of magnitude that you saw. Maybe KVM introduces some fuzz
for me.

I checked whether fsync = sync is the reason, and no. Well, that goes
on the back burner, we will no doubt figure it out in due course.

Regards,

Daniel
--
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/