| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 06:51:40 +0300 From: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance David Chinner wrote: > On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 01:43:18PM -0700, Cabot, Mason B wrote: > > I've been testing the NAS performance of ext3/Openfiler 2.2 against > > NTFS/WinXP and have found that NTFS significantly outperforms ext3 for > > video workloads. The Windows CIFS client will attempt a poor-man's > > pre-allocation of the file on the server by sending 1-byte writes at > > 128K-byte strides, breaking block allocation on ext3 and leading to > > fragmentation and poor performance. This will happen for many > > applications (including iTunes) as the CIFS client issues these > > pre-allocates under the application layer. > > > > I've posted a brief paper on Intel's OSS website > > (http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/articles/eng/1259.htm). Please give > > it a read and let me know what you think. In particular, I'd like to > > arrive at the right place to fix this problem: is it in the filesystem, > > VFS, or Samba? It's a Samba problem. Samba doesn't do async writes, which v3.0 should have fixed. Did you try that? > As I commented on IRC to Val Henson - the XFS performance indicates > that it is not a VFS or Samba problem. XFS somewhat hides the Samba problem, by efficiently syncing to disk. Thanks! -- Al - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists