linux-ext4 - Re: Test results for ext4

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]

Message-ID: <4843F07C.5020306@bull.net>
Date:	Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:07:08 +0200
From:	Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Test results for ext4

Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Oh, also for completeness can you specify which xfsprogs you used?
> There were some recent changes made which affect the fs geometry, and
> might affect the results.  So it would be good to fully specify.
OK, to do. To be honest, I didn't update them recently.

> 
> Also why no fragmentation results for xfs or ext3?
I only forgot to do it.

But I didn't want to make a full comparaison of ext4 to xfs and ext3.
When testing the latest ext4 patch queue with a new kernel, I'd got
sometimes kernel crashes, or system hang, or bad performance.
Running the same tests on ext3 and xfs for which the code is more
stable I think gives me reference numbers for my tests.
In this way, I found in the past a problem in the IO scheduler.

    Valérie

--
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