[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <485A8C2D.1090806@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:41:17 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Holger Kiehl <Holger.Kiehl@....de>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Solofo.Ramangalahy@...l.net,
Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@...com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Performance of ext4
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:42:36AM +0000, Holger Kiehl wrote:
>> Note how the size of file results.24033.helena.dwd.de changes from
>> 9230 before the test to 8208 bytes after the test. Also note the
>> date both have the same timestamp "2008-06-17 04:35". I have made a
>> copy of results.24033.helena.dwd.de before the test and compared it
>> with that after the test. The file is just truncated by 1022 bytes
>> and there is no garbage.
>
> So the corruption is always a truncation, correct?
>
> Did you notice the problem with ext4 w/o the patch queue? I have a
> suspicion that the problem may have been introduced by the delayed
> allocation code, but I don't have hard evidence. When you rerun your
> benchmark (which seems to be the closest thing we have to a
> reproduction case), it would be interesting to know if the problem
> goes away with -o nodelalloc (again, it would localize where we need
> to look).
>
> Thanks, regards,
It might be worth runninga "simple" fsx under your kernel too; last time
I tested fsx it was still happy and it exercises fs ops (including
truncate) at random...
-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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists