| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ed038eb20804271713n79ff9b0cxa6906867d7a20f9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:13:55 +0200 From: "Carl Henrik Lunde" <chlunde@...g.uio.no> To: "Soeren Sandmann" <sandmann@...mi.au.dk> Cc: "Theodore Tso" <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alexl@...hat.com Subject: Re: stat benchmark On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Soeren Sandmann <sandmann@...mi.au.dk> wrote: [...] > For a directory of ~2360 files, chunks of a 1000 files is actually > surprisingly worse than statting all of the files at once: > > Time to stat 1000 files: 1.008735 s > Time to stat 1000 files: 0.738936 s > Time to stat 366 files: 0.217002 s > > I guess this just shows that seeks really is pretty much all that > matters. Glib should maybe use a larger chunk size. I agree, if I remember correctly I did not find a directory on my local disk where the best result was to sort a chunk instead of the complete directory. > I don't know if a general library outside glib would be useful. It > seems that just telling people to "sort by inode before statting" > would be just as effective as telling them "use this optimized > library". A library (like glib) could disable the feature for solid-state drives and perhaps implement an alternative strategy for filesystems without any inode/sector correlation. So I think we should tell people to use glib. :-) -- Carl Henrik -- 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