[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080423073231.GC10003@skywalker>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:02:31 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What's cooking in e2fsprogs.git (topics)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:41:44PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> * ak/undo-mgr (Mon Aug 13 15:56:26 2007 +0530) 6 commits
> - Add test cases for undoe2fs: u_undoe2fs_mke2fs and
> u_undoe2fs_tune2fs
> - Fix the resize inode test case
> - tune2fs: Support for large inode migration.
> - mke2fs: Add support for the undo I/O manager.
> - Add undoe2fs command
> - libext2fs: Add undo I/O manager
>
> These patches have been *significantly* rototilled.
>
> * The test cases weren't correctly setting and deleting the
> test_name.ok and test_name.failed files
>
> * mke2fs would bomb out with an incomprehensible error message
> if run twice in a row, or if the user didn't have write access
> to /var/lib/e2fsprogs (some users run mke2fs as a non-root
> user!)
>
> * the undoe2fs program was calling com_err and passing
> in uninitialized retval values, and was otherwise confused
> about how to do proper error handling, resulting in garbage
> getting printed if the file passed in didn't exist
>
> * there was a terrible performance problem because in the
> mke2fs case, the undo manager was using a tdb_data_size of
> 512.
>
> * I added the ability to configure the location of the scratch
> dirctory via mke2fs.conf for mk2efs. What we should do for
> tune2fs is less clear, and still needs to be addressed. It
> is also possible to force an undo file to be always created,
> and not just when doing a lazy inode table initialization.
> By using a 4k instead of 512 tdb_data_size, the time to
> speed up an mke2fs was cut in half, while still using an
> undo file. I suspect if we force the tdb_data_size to be
> even larger, say 32k or 64k the overhead would shrink even
> more.
>
> Unfortunately, there appears to be some kind of data
> corruption bug if I force a tdb_data_size of 32768, so I'm not
> entirely sure I trust the undo manager to be working
> correctly. The undo_manager code itself needs a pretty
> serious auditing and checking to make sure it's doing the
> right thing with large tdb_data_sizes.
>
undo-mgr is using the first blocks size used to write. This was done as
per the discussion at
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/1942
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/2056
I am not sure how you are forcing larger tdb_data_size. Can you send me
the changes so that I can test it and see what is wrong.
-aneesh
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists