linux-kernel - Re: Large write = large latency for small writes

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: <1237327752.5189.1119.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:09:12 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	David Rees <drees76@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Large write = large latency for small writes

On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:19 -0700, David Rees wrote:

> I have a simple test case which demonstrates the huge increase in
> write latency that occurs for small writes when a large disk
> saturating write is also in progress [3]:
> 
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/bigfile bs=1M count=10000 conv=fdatasync &
> sleep 10
> time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/smallfile bs=4k count=1 conv=fdatasync
> 
> On a handful of systems I have access to, it took anywhere from 6-45
> seconds for the small write to complete.  Others in the bug have
> reproduced this across a number of filesystems (ext3, reiserfs, ext4).
> xfs in particular seems to handle this test case better than the
> others.  As do systems which can sustain high write speeds.

How does it fare without the fdatasync?

That is, is it the sync that's taking ages, or the ditry?

--
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/