[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110408185013.GB17677@noexit>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:50:13 -0700
From: Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>
To: Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@...cle.com>
Cc: djwong@...ibm.com, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: Calculate and verify inode checksums
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 10:10:52AM -0700, Sunil Mushran wrote:
> On 04/07/2011 09:40 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >That said, I haven't really quantified the performance impact of this naive
> >approach yet, so I wonder -- did you see a similar scenario with ocfs2, and
> >what kind of performance increase did you get by adapting the code to use the
> >jbd2 trigger? If there's potentially a large increase, it would be interesting
> >to apply the same conversion to the group descriptor checksumming code too.
>
> Joel Becker may remember the overhead. He wrote the patch. That said we have few
> differences. ocfs2 has larger (blocksized) inodes. Also, it computes ECC. The code
> is in fs/ocfs2/blockcheck.c.
ocfs2 does the journal access/journal dirty cycle a lot more
than extN. I think you'd want to generate your own numbers.
Joel
--
"Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamoured of existing evils,
as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them
with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
http://www.jlbec.org/
jlbec@...lplan.org
--
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