[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130401155705.16754.31446@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:57:05 -0400
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
CC: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: EXT4 nodelalloc => back to stone age.
Quoting Chris Mason (2013-04-01 11:45:41)
> Quoting Eric Sandeen (2013-04-01 11:18:51)
> > On 4/1/13 6:06 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> >
> > > 1)Do we really have to use WRITE_SYNC in case of WB_SYNC_ALL ?
>
> Yes? The stuff we wait on should be WRITE_SYNC.
>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > 2) Why don't we have writepages for non delalloc case ?
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I'd add:
> >
> > 3) Why do we have a "nodelalloc" mount option at all?
> >
> > but then I thought:
> >
> > Is it also this bad when using the ext4 driver to run an ext3 fs?
>
> Quick comparison on a single iodrive:
On the theory that writepages is the problem try echo 1 >
/sys/block/xxx/queue/rotational. With request merging on here in
nodelalloc mode:
dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1M count=1024 conv=fsync,notrunc
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 2.53741 s, 423 MB/s
dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1M count=1024 conv=fsync,notrunc
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 1.37795 s, 779 MB/s
-chris
--
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