linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/2] ext3: Reduce calling ext3_mark_inode

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]

Date:	Fri, 3 Feb 2012 21:28:02 +0800
From:	Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
To:	Kazuya Mio <k-mio@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
	ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ext3: Reduce calling ext3_mark_inode_dirty() for speedup

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Kazuya Mio <k-mio@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
> 2012/02/03 7:36, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>>
>>>  filesystem        time(sec)  call extX_mark_inode_dirty(times)
>>>  ---
>>>  ext3              220.5      50,338,104
>>>  ext3 (patched)    196.3      25,169,658
>>>  ext4 (*1)         190.3      28,465,799
>>>  ext4 (*2)         201.5      27,963,473
>>>  ext4 (default)    223.3      14,026,118
>>>
>>>  *1 disable ext4-specific options (delalloc, extent, and so on)
>>>  *2 disable only delalloc option
>>
>> This shows that ext4 with extents+delalloc is _slower_ than ext3, which
>> is very strange.  In other similar tests of write performance (see
>
>
> One more thing is that ext4+delalloc is slower than ext4+nodelalloc.
And according to the data, maybe ext4+extent is also slower than ext4+noextent.

What's the size of the fs?  and what kind of the tested device?

Yongqiang.
>
>
>> http://downloads.linux.hp.com/~enw/ext4/3.2/large_file_creates.html,
>> showing multi-threaded 1GB file writes) ext4 is much faster than ext3.
>
>
> I guess write buffer size of my test is different from ffsb's one.
> My test calls write systemcall every time one block is allocated,
> so it is close to the stress test I think.
>
>
>> Looking at your original email, is ext4 being tested on a RHEL 5.5
>> (2.6.18) kernel, or a more recent kernel?  It would be more useful
>> to run this on a more modern kernel, since the ext4 code backported
>> to RHEL5 was barely supporting delalloc at all, if I remember correctly.
>
>
> I tested on the recent kernel (3.3-rc1).
> I also tested on RHEL5.5, and its result showed that ext3 was much slower
> than
> the recent kernel's one.
>
>  filesystem        time(sec)
>  ---
>  ext3(RHEL5.5)     438.6
>  ext3(3.3-rc1)     220.5
>
> Regards,
> Kazuya Mio
>
> --
> 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



-- 
Best Wishes
Yongqiang Yang
--
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