linux-ext4 - Re: [Q] ext3 mkfs: zeroing journal blocks

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: <20090512210446.GD23773@mit.edu>
Date:	Tue, 12 May 2009 17:04:46 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishckin@...il.com>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Q] ext3 mkfs: zeroing journal blocks

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 03:49:30PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> 
> So, what Andreas explained yesterday also applies to the internal log
> case. I see. Would you say it's possible to prevent this, for instance
> somehow say, by means checksums as Andreas suggested?
> 

It's *possible*, but it's not a trivial amount of work; it requires
both kernel and userspace changes, though.

> It's an mmc and it (mkfs) runs almost two times faster without zeroing
> the journal. The only thing I'm worried about is the time that it
> takes for mke2fs -j to complete. I've done some caching trickery to
> unix_io.c which I'm going to post here separately, but most of the
> time seems to be taken by the journal.

But why do you care about the time it akes for mke2fs -j to complete?
How much time is it taking?  Normally mke2fs isn't one of those
programs which gets run all the time....

					- 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