linux-ext4 - Re: fsck performance.

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: <20110222221304.GH2924@thunk.org>
Date:	Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:13:04 -0500
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:	Rogier Wolff <R.E.Wolff@...Wizard.nl>,
	Pawe?? Brodacki <pawel.brodacki@...glemail.com>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: fsck performance.

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 09:32:28AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> 
> Any idea what the hash size does to memory usage?  I wonder if we
> can scale this based on the directory count, or if the memory usage
> is minimal (only needed in case of tdb) then just make it the
> default. It definitely appears to have been a major performance
> boost.

Yeah, that was my question.  Your patch adds a magic number which
probably works well on your machine (and I'm not really worried if
someone has less than 1G --- here's a quarter kid, buy your self a
real computer :-).  But I wonder if we should be using a hash size
which is sized automatically depending on available memory or file
system size.

					- 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