linux-ext4 - Re: fallocate creating fragmented files

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: <20130201135558.GA1438@thunk.org>
Date:	Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:55:58 -0500
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>
Cc:	Robert Mueller <robm@...tmail.fm>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	Linux Ext4 mailing list <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: fallocate creating fragmented files

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 10:33:21PM +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> 
> In particular, the way that Cyrus works seems entirely suboptimal for ext4.
> The index and database files receive very small appends (108 byte per message
> for the index, and probably just a few hundred per write for most of the the
> twoskip databases), and they happen pretty much randomly to one of tens of
> thousands of these little files, depending which mailbox received the message.

Are all of these files in a single directory?  If so, that's part of
the problem, since ext[34] uses the directory structure to try to
spread apart unrelated files, so that hueristic can't be easily used
if all of the files are in a single directory.

> Here's the same experiment on a "fresh" filesystem.  I created this by taking
> a server down, copying the entire contents of the SSD to a spare piece of rust,
> reformatting, and copying it all back (cp -a).  So the data on there is the
> same, just the allocations have changed.
> 
> [brong@...p15 conf]$ fallocate -l 20m testfile
> [brong@...p15 conf]$ filefrag -v testfile
> Filesystem type is: ef53
> File size of testfile is 20971520 (20480 blocks, blocksize 1024)
>  ext logical physical expected length flags
>    0       0 22913025            8182 unwritten
>    1    8182 22921217 22921207   8182 unwritten
>    2   16364 22929409 22929399   4116 unwritten,eof
> testfile: 3 extents found
> 
> As you can see, that's slightly more optimal.  I'm assuming 8182 is the
> maximum number of contiguous blocks before you hit an assigned metadata
> location and have to skip over it.

Is there a reason why you are using a 1k block size?  The size of a
block group is 8192 blocks for 1k blocks (or 8 megabytes), while with
a 4k block size, the size of a block group is 32768 blocks (or 128
megabytes).  In general the ext4 file system is going to be far more
efficient with a 4k block size.

Regards,

					- 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