[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <906726DA-EC86-40CB-AB3E-7F3871609BF3@dilger.ca>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:15:12 -0700
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
Cc: "tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"adilger@...ger.ca" <adilger@...ger.ca>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/15] ext4: add new online resize interface
On 2011-11-19, at 20:14, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-11-19, at 2:57, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Below are benchmarks I made on my personal computer, fses with
>>> flex_bg size = 16 were resized to 230GB evry time. The first
>>> row shows the size of a fs from which the fs was resized to 230GB.
>>> The datas were collected by 'time resize2fs'.
>>>
>>> new resize
>>> 20GB 50GB 100GB
>>> real 0m3.558s 0m2.891s 0m0.394s
>>> user 0m0.004s 0m0.000s 0m0.394s
>>> sys 0m0.048s 0m0.048s 0m0.028s
>>>
>>> current resize
>>> 20GB 50GB 100GB
>>> real 5m2.770s 4m43.757s 3m14.840s
>>> user 0m0.040s 0m0.032s 0m0.024s
>>> sys 0m0.464s 0m0.432s 0m0.324s
>>
>> These stats must be backward, because resizing 20GB takes more time than resizing 100GB.
>
> Every time, the filesystem was resized from 20/50/100GB to 230GB, so
> resizing 20GB should takes more time than resizing 100GB. I am not
> sure what you meant.
Sorry, I didn't read closely enough. I thought it was resizing by the given amount.
Cheers, Andreas--
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