linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Allow ext4 to run without a journal.

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: <532480950812181013m76fef953s3b3fb517d708b383@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:13:13 -0800
From:	Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Allow ext4 to run without a journal.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>  Interesting although I'm not that surprised because those tests seem
> to do a lot of data changes (which are never journaled in fact) and tiny
> amount of metadata changes. If you run some benchmark doing lots of
> directory operations, I guess the numbers would be considerably
> different.

Actually we have some compile bench numbers (coming to this list soon)
that also surprised us.
The stages of compile bench that I believe are dominated by directory
operations are also
showing improvements without the journal.

> Maybe trying dbench (I know it's kind of stupid ;) or
> postmark will show the differences better.

I admit also we see huge variance using dbench on subsequent runs. To
the point where I don't know how much I trust it's numbers.
Is this a tool that people on this list have a lot of faith in?

mrubin
--
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