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  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:	Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:35:57 +0100
From:	Jacek Luczak <>
To:	Chris Mason <>,
	Jacek Luczak <>,,
	linux-fsdevel <>,
	LKML <>,,
Subject: Re: getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance

2012/2/29 Jacek Luczak <>:
> 2012/2/29 Chris Mason <>:
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 03:07:45PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
>> [ btrfs faster than ext for find and cp -a ]
>>> 2012/2/29 Jacek Luczak <>:
>>> I will try to answer the question from the broken email I've sent.
>>> @Lukas, it was always a fresh FS on top of LVM logical volume. I've
>>> been cleaning cache/remounting to sync all data before (re)doing
>>> tests.
>> The next step is to get cp -a out of the picture, in this case you're
>> benchmarking both the read speed and the write speed (what are you
>> copying to btw?).
> It's simple cp -a Jenkins{,.bak} so dir to dir copy on same volume.
>> Using tar cf /dev/zero <some_dir> is one way to get a consistent picture
>> of the read speed.
> IMO the problem is not - only - in read speed. The directory order hit
> here. There's a difference in the sequential tests that place btrfs as
> the winner but still this should not have that huge influence on
> getdents. I know a bit on the difference between ext4 and btrfs
> directory handling and I would not expect that huge difference. On the
> production system where the issue has been observed doing some real
> work in the background copy takes up to 4h.
> For me btrfs looks perfect here, what could be worth checking is the
> change of timing in syscall between 39.4 and 3.2.7. Before getdents
> was not that high on the list while now it jumps to second position
> but without huge impact on the timings.
>> You can confirm the theory that it is directory order causing problems
>> by using acp to read the data.
> Will check this still today and report back.

While I was about to grab acp I've noticed seekwatcher with made my day :)

seekwatcher run of tar cf to eliminate writes (all done on 3.2.7):
1) btrfs:
2) ext4:
3) both merged:

I will send acp results soon.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists