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  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]
Date:	Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:38:16 -0600
From:	Bruce Guenter <lists-linux-ext4@...ce-guenter.dyndns.org>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext4 unlink performance

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 07:56:10PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>   Bruce, how much memory did you have in your
> system?  Do you have a large amount of memory, say 6-8 gigs, by any
> chance?

The test system has 1.5GB RAM.

> One thing is clear --- we need to rethink our block and inode
> allocation algorithms in light of delayed allocation.  Maybe XFS has
> some tricks up its sleeve that we can learn from?

Just so I am clear as well, I fully realize this is quite an artifical
benchmark.  I asked about it because of how large the regression is.  I
deal with many systems that typically have to handle creating and
unlinking large numbers of small files (mail servers).  They all are
running ext3 now, but I am considering switching them to ext4 once
2.6.28 is out.  As such my big concern is that this regression will
cause performance problems for them.

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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists