linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/2] HACK: ext3: mount fast even when recovering

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: <20090714223649.GJ10131@mit.edu>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:36:49 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...ia.com>, sct@...hat.com,
	adilger@....com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	artem.bityutskiy@...ia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] HACK: ext3: mount fast even when recovering

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 04:46:37PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 
> (whoa, can barriers make something faster?  who woulda thunk it)

I sent this reply in response to the first Adrian's first e-mail, that
had bogus e-mail addresses for akpm and sct, so resending it here:

Have you actually benchmarked these patches, ideally with a fixed
filesystem image so the two runs are done requiring exactly the same
number of blocks to recover?  We implement ordered I/O in terms of
doing a flush, so it would be surprising to see that a significant
difference in times.  Also, it would be useful to do a blktrace before
and after your patches, again with a fixed filesystem image so the
experiment can be carefully controlled.

Regards,

                                                - 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