[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090714155118.GB10131@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:51:18 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...ia.com>
Cc: Andrew.Morton.akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Andreas.Dilger.adilger@....com, Stephen.Tweedie.sct@...hat.com,
Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ia.com>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ext3 HACKs
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 05:02:53PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> Hi
>
> We are using linux 2.6.28 and we have a situation where ext3
> can take 30-60 seconds to mount.
>
> The cause is the underlying device has extremely poor random
> write speed (several orders of magnitude slower than sequential
> write speed), and journal recovery can involve many small random
> writes.
>
> To alleviate this situation somewhat, I have two moderately ugly
> hacks:
> HACK 1: ext3: mount fast even when recovering
> HACK 2: do I/O read requests while ext3 journal recovers
>
> HACK 1 uses a I/O barrier in place of waiting for recovery I/O to be
> flushed.
>
> HACK 2 crudely throws I/O read requests to the front of the dispatch
> queue until the I/O barrier from HACK 1 is reached.
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists