linux-ext4 - Re: ext4

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:	Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:02:45 -0400
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
CC:	Ric Wheeler <ricwheeler@...il.com>, Fredrick <fjohnber@...o.com>,
	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, wenqing.lz@...bao.com
Subject: Re: ext4_fallocate

On 6/27/12 3:30 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:44:08PM -0400, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>
>>> I tried running this fio recipe on v3.3, which I think does a decent job of
>>> emulating the situation (fallocate 1G, do random 1M writes into it, with
>>> fsyncs after each):
>>>
>>> [test]
>>> filename=testfile
>>> rw=randwrite
>>> size=1g
>>> filesize=1g
>>> bs=1024k
>>> ioengine=sync
>>> fallocate=1
>>> fsync=1
> 
> A better workload would be to use a blocksize of 4k.  By using a
> blocksize of 1024k, it's not surprising that the metadata overhead is
> in the noise.
> 
> Try something like this; this will cause the extent tree overhead to
> be roughly equal to the data block I/O.
> 
> [global]
> rw=randwrite
> size=128m
> filesize=1g
> bs=4k
> ioengine=sync
> fallocate=1
> fsync=1
> 
> [thread1]
> filename=testfile

Well, ok ... TBH I changed it to size=16m to finish in under 20m.... so here are the results:

fallocate 1g, do 16m of 4k random IOs, sync after each:

# for I in a b c; do rm -f testfile; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; fio tytso.fio | grep 2>&1 WRITE; done

  WRITE: io=16384KB, aggrb=154KB/s, minb=158KB/s, maxb=158KB/s, mint=105989msec, maxt=105989msec
  WRITE: io=16384KB, aggrb=163KB/s, minb=167KB/s, maxb=167KB/s, mint=99906msec, maxt=99906msec
  WRITE: io=16384KB, aggrb=176KB/s, minb=180KB/s, maxb=180KB/s, mint=92791msec, maxt=92791msec

same, but overwrite pre-written 1g file (same as the expose-my-data option ;)

# dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=1M count=1024
# for I in a b c; do echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; fio tytso.fio | grep 2>&1 WRITE; done

  WRITE: io=16384KB, aggrb=164KB/s, minb=168KB/s, maxb=168KB/s, mint=99515msec, maxt=99515msec
  WRITE: io=16384KB, aggrb=164KB/s, minb=168KB/s, maxb=168KB/s, mint=99371msec, maxt=99371msec
  WRITE: io=16384KB, aggrb=164KB/s, minb=168KB/s, maxb=168KB/s, mint=99677msec, maxt=99677msec

so no great surprise, small synchronous 4k writes have terrible performance, but I'm still not seeing a lot of fallocate overhead.

xfs, FWIW:

# for I in a b c; do rm -f testfile; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; fio tytso.fio | grep 2>&1 WRITE; done

  WRITE: io=16384KB, aggrb=202KB/s, minb=207KB/s, maxb=207KB/s, mint=80980msec, maxt=80980msec
  WRITE: io=16384KB, aggrb=203KB/s, minb=208KB/s, maxb=208KB/s, mint=80508msec, maxt=80508msec
  WRITE: io=16384KB, aggrb=204KB/s, minb=208KB/s, maxb=208KB/s, mint=80291msec, maxt=80291msec

# dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=1M count=1024
# for I in a b c; do echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; fio tytso.fio | grep 2>&1 WRITE; done

  WRITE: io=16384KB, aggrb=197KB/s, minb=202KB/s, maxb=202KB/s, mint=82869msec, maxt=82869msec
  WRITE: io=16384KB, aggrb=203KB/s, minb=208KB/s, maxb=208KB/s, mint=80348msec, maxt=80348msec
  WRITE: io=16384KB, aggrb=202KB/s, minb=207KB/s, maxb=207KB/s, mint=80827msec, maxt=80827msec

Again, I think this is just a diabolical workload ;)

-Eric
--
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