linux-ext4 - Re: More testing: 4x parallel 2G writes, sequential reads

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]

Message-ID: <473247C7.4020101@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:18:31 -0600
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: More testing: 4x parallel 2G writes, sequential reads

Andreas Dilger wrote:

> The question is what the "best" result is for this kind of workload?
> In HPC applications the common case is that you will also have the data
> files read back in parallel instead of serially.

Agreed, I'm not trying to argue what's better or worse, I'm just seeing
what it's doing.

The main reason I did sequential reads back is that it more clearly
shows the file layout for each file on the graph.  :)  I'm just getting
a handle on how the allocations are going for various types of writes.

> The test shows ext4 finishing marginally faster in the write case, and
> marginally slower in the read case.  What happens if you have 4 parallel
> readers?

I'll test that a bit later (have to run now); I expect parallel readers
may go faster, since the blocks are interleaved, and it might be able to
suck them up pretty much in order across all 4 files.

I'd also like to test some of this under a single head, rather than on
HW raid...

-Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html