linux-ext4 - Re: ext4 unlink performance

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: <20081113202733.GA11746@untroubled.org>
Date:	Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:27:33 -0600
From:	Bruce Guenter <lists-linux-ext4@...ce-guenter.dyndns.org>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext4 unlink performance

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:46:28PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> I'm assuming that ext3 filesystem was created with htree enabled
> (possibly not true on older versions of e2fsprogs), but if you're
> creating ext4 filesystems, I'm assuming that you have been using an
> 1.41.x version of e2fsprogs.

All filesystems are new filesystems, created with e2fsprogs 1.41.2, all
with the default options except for ^huge_file and the inode size.

> If this the the case, the most likely explanation is that that ext4
> defaults to barriers enabled, and ext3 defaults to barriers disabled.
> So try mounting ext3 with "-o barriers=1", or ext4 with "-o
> barriers=0", so that the comparison is between apples and apples.

The indication from dmesg is that ext4 is already running with barriers
disabled due to running over dm, but I will re-run with barriers forced
off to double check.

-- 
Bruce Guenter <bruce@...roubled.org>                http://untroubled.org/

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped