[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080710175354.GA3447@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:53:55 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: suspiciously good fsck times?
Based on the graphs which Eric posted, One interesting thing I think
you'll find if you repeat the ext3 experiment with e2fsck -t -t is
that pass2 will be about seven times longer than pass1. (Which is
backwards from most e2fsck runs, where pass2 is about half pass 1's
run time --- although obviously that depends on how many directory
blocks you have.)
Yes, some kind of reservation windows would help on ext3 --- but the
question is whether such a change would be too-specific for this
benchmark or not. Most of the time directories don't grow to such a
huge size. So if you use a smallish (around 8 blocks, say) for many
directories this might lead to more filesystem fragmentation that in
the long run would cause the filesystem not to age well; it also
wouldn't help much when you have over 11 million files in the
directory, and a directory with over 100,000 blocks.
I don't think delayed allocation is what's helping here either,
because the journal will force the directory blocks to be placed as
soon as we commit a transaction. I think what's saving us here is
that flex_bg and mballoc is separating the directory blocks from the
data blocks, allowng the directory blocks to be closely packed
together.
- Ted
--
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