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, 5 Sep 2012 14:50:32 +0800
From:	Kevin Liao <kevinlia@...il.com>
To:	Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
Cc:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula@....fi>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] resize2fs: fix overhead calculation for meta_bg file systems

2012/9/5 Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Kevin Liao <kevinlia@...il.com> wrote:
>> 2012/9/4 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>:
>>> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:59:55AM +0800, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
>>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>>
>>>>   Ted has sent out the patches on online resizing for meta_bg and
>>>> 64bits, so you can have a try again. It seems that the bug in
>>>> e2fsprogs has been fixed.
>>>
>>> Make sure you use the latest version of the kernel patches that I just
>>> sent out.  There quite a number of bugs in the Yongqiang's original
>>> patch set which I tripped over while I was testing 64-bit resize ---
>>> and please note that there are definitely still rough edges
>>> (especially for in cases where the file system was created < 16TB, but
>>> with the 64-bit feature and resize_inode features enabled).  There may
>>> also be bugs for the straightforward case of resizing very large file
>>> systems.
>>>
>>> So while I very much appreciate users giving the code a try and
>>> sending us feedback, please do think twice before using this code on
>>> file systems with data that hasn't been backed up recently.  (Of
>>> course, being good System Administrators you are all keeping --- and
>>> verifying --- regular backups, right?  :-)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>                                                 - Ted
>>
>> I had done some simple and quick test. The following is the result.
>>
>> Kernel: 3.4.7 + 5 patches
>> e2fsprogs: 1.42.5 + 2 patches
>>
>> The format command I used is:
>> mke2fs -t ext4 -m0 -b 4096 -F -O 64bit,meta_bg,^resize_inode /dev/md0 nnnn
>>
>> Case 1: Simplly resize
>> 1st step: resize from 14T to 18T => ok
>> 2nd step: resize from 18T to 20T => ok (calculate_minimum_resize_size
>> issue gone)
>> 3rd step: resize from 20T to 21T => ok
>>
>> Case 2: case 1 + file read-write (just like Anssi did)
>> 1st step: resize from 14T to 20T (5368709120 blocks) => ok
>> 2nd step: resize from 20T to 5368709170 blocks => same kernel bug_on
>>
>> Case 3: case 2 + Yongqiang's 2 patches
>> 1st step: resize from 14T to 20T (5368709120 blocks) => ok
>> 2nd step: resize from 20T to 5368709170 blocks => ok
>>
>> Basically I think the resize funtionality should be ok. However I also
>> observe some performance drop. That is, the time needed for mke2fs,
>> mount and e2fsck are longer than before. Here is some detailed data:
>>
>> For 12TB with 64bit,meta_bg,^resize_inode
>> mke2fs: 54.699s
>> mount: 12.108s
>> e2fsck: 1m52.027s
>>
>> For 12TB without 64bit,meta_bg,^resize_inode
> Did you mean without 64bit and without meta_bg OR with without 64bit
> and with meta_bg?
>
> I am guessing you meant without 64bit and without meta_bg, am I right?
> Yongqiang.

What I mean with 64bit,meta_bg,^resize_inode is to use the following
format command
mke2fs -t ext4 -m0 -b 4096 -F -O 64bit,meta_bg,^resize_inode /dev/md0 3758096384

And without 64bit,meta_bg,^resize_inode means
mke2fs -t ext4 -m0 -b 4096 -F /dev/md0 3758096384

Regards,
Kevin Liao

>> mke2fs: 39.763s
>> mount: 0.897s
>> e2fsck: 1m17.554s
>>
>> For 20TB with 64bit,meta_bg,^resize_inode
>> mke2fs: 1m25.090s
>> mount: 19.992s
>> e2fsck: 2m55.048s
>>
>> For 20TB without 64bit,meta_bg,^resize_inode
>> mke2fs: 1m3.660s
>> mount: 1.458s
>> e2fsck: 1m56.055s
>>
>> Yongqiang had told me previously that it may be caused by using
>> meta_bg. I am still wondering is there anything we can do to improve
>> the peroformance? Thanks a lot.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kevin Liao
>
>
>
> --
> 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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists