linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/4 v3] ext3/4: enhance fsync performance when using CFQ

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <x494ojcj1tc.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:13:51 -0400
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	vgoyal@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4 v3] ext3/4: enhance fsync performance when using CFQ

Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> writes:

>> > This is starting to look better. Can you share what tests you did? I
>> > tried reproducing with fs_mark last time and could not.
>> 
>> Did you use the fs_mark command line I (think I) had posted?  What
>> storage were you using?
>
> No, I didn't see any references to example command lines. I tested on a
> few single disks, rotating and SSD. I expected the single spinning disk
> to show the problem to some extent at least, but there was no difference
> observed with 64kb blocks.

Boy, I'm really slipping.  Try this one:

./fs_mark -S 1 -D 100 -N 1000 -d /mnt/test/fs_mark -s 65536 -t 1 -w 4096

Cheers,
Jeff
--
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