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]

Message-ID: <20120628124834.GA5313@thunk.org>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:48:34 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
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 Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 07:02:45PM -0400, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

There's a pretty large range comparing the first set versus the second
set of numbers.  With the second set of numbers, the times are much
more stable.

I wonder if one of the things that's going on is file placement; if
you're constantly deleting and recreating the file, are we getting the
same block numbers or not?  (And if we're not, is that something we
need to look at vis-a-vis the block allocator --- especially with
SSD's?)

						- Ted
--
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