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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:14:21 -0500
From:	"Abhishek Rai" <>
To:	"Andrew Morton" <>
Subject: Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6 -mm patch]

No, it didn't. I measured read from a 10GB sequentially laid out file
with standard benchmarking practices (cold cache, multiple runs, low
std. deviation in results, etc.) and here are the results:

File created by vanilla Ext3 being read by vanilla Ext3:
Total: 3m16.1s
User: 0.0.5s
Sys: 13.9

File created by mc Ext3 being read by mc Ext3 (with the buffer
boundary logic disabled):
Total: 3m15.5s
User: 0.05s
Sys: 13.6s


On Jan 24, 2008 2:49 AM, Andrew Morton <> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:12:16 -0500 Abhishek Rai <> wrote:
> > > I'm wondering about the interaction between this code and the
> > > buffer_boundary() logic.  I guess we should disable the buffer_boundary()
> > > handling when this code is in effect.  Have you reviewed and tested that
> > > aspect?
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out, I had totally missed this issue in my change. I've now made the call to set_buffer_boundary() in ext3_get_blocks_handle() subject to metacluster option being set.
> >
> Did it make any performance difference?  iirc the buffer_boundary stuff was
> worth around 10% on a single linear read of a large, well-laid-out file.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists