linux-ext4 - Re: ext4 performance regression 2.6.27-stable versus 2.6.32 and later

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: <20100730022055.GL4506@thunk.org>
Date:	Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:20:55 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Kay Diederichs <Kay.Diederichs@...-konstanz.de>
Cc:	linux <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Karsten Schaefer <karsten.schaefer@...-konstanz.de>
Subject: Re: ext4 performance regression 2.6.27-stable versus 2.6.32 and
 later

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 09:51:48PM +0200, Kay Diederichs wrote:
> 
> When looking at the I/O statistics while the benchmark is running, we
> see very choppy patterns for 2.6.32, but quite smooth stats for
> 2.6.27-stable.

Could you try to do two things for me?  Using (preferably from a
recent e2fsprogs, such as 1.41.11 or 12) run filefrag -v on the files
created from your 2.6.27 run and your 2.6.32 run?

Secondly can capture blktrace results from 2.6.27 and 2.6.32?  That
would be very helpful to understand what might be going on.

Either would be helpful; both would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

						- 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