linux-kernel - Re: How git affects kernel.org performance

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:	Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:03:36 +0100
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, git@...r.kernel.org,
	nigel@...el.suspend2.net, "J.H." <warthog9@...nel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	webmaster@...nel.org
Subject: Re: How git affects kernel.org performance

On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 12:58:38AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
> >At work, we had the same problem on a file server with ext3. We use rsync
> >to make backups to a local IDE disk, and we noticed that getdents() took
> >about the same time as Peter reports (0.2 to 2 seconds), especially in
> >maildir directories. We tried many things to fix it with no result,
> >including enabling dirindexes. Finally, we made a full backup, and switched
> >over to XFS and the problem totally disappeared. So it seems that the
> >filesystem matters a lot here when there are lots of entries in a
> >directory, and that ext3 is not suitable for usages with thousands
> >of entries in directories with millions of files on disk. I'm not
> >certain it would be that easy to try other filesystems on kernel.org
> >though :-/
> >
> 
> Changing filesystems would mean about a week of downtime for a server. 
> It's painful, but it's doable; however, if we get a traffic spike during 
> that time it'll hurt like hell.
> 
> However, if there is credible reasons to believe XFS will help, I'd be 
> inclined to try it out.

The problem is that I have no sufficient FS knowledge to argument why
it helps here. It was a desperate attempt to fix the problem for us
and it definitely worked well.

Hmmm I'm thinking about something very dirty : would it be possible
to reduce the current FS size to get more space to create another
FS ? Supposing you create a XX GB/TB XFS after the current ext3,
you would be able to mount it in some directories with --bind and
slowly switch some parts to it. The problem with this approach is
that it will never be 100% converted, but as an experiment it might
be worth it, no ?

Willy

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/