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: <20110223231739.GS2924@thunk.org>
Date:	Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:17:39 -0500
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:	Rogier Wolff <R.E.Wolff@...wizard.nl>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fsck performance.

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:24:18PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> 
> If you have the opportunity, I wonder whether the entire need for
> tdb can be avoided in your case by using swap and the icount
> optimization patches previously posted?  

Unfortunately, there are people who are still using 32-bit CPU's, so
no, swap is not a solution here.   

> I'd really like to get that patch included upstream, but it needs
> testing in an environment like yours where icount is a significant
> factor.  This would avoid all of the tdb overhead.

Adjusting the tdb hash parameters, and changing the tdb hash functions
shouldn't be hard to get into upstream.  We should really improve our
testing for [scratch files], but that's always been true....

	    	     	     	 	- 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