linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] Pramfs: Persistent and protected ram filesystem

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090622172003.GB21149@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:20:04 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
Cc:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	Linux Embedded <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@....ucsc.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Pramfs: Persistent and protected ram filesystem

> > How do you handle hard-links, then?
> 
> Indeed hard-links are not supported :) Due to the design of this fs
> there are some limitations explained in the documentation as not
> hard-link, only private memory mapping and so on. However this
> limitations don't limit the fs itself because you must consider the
> special goal of this fs.

I did not see that in the changelog. If it is not general purpose
filesystem, it is lot less interesting.

> >> >From performance point of view:
> >>
> >> Sometimes ago I uploaded here (http://elinux.org/Pram_Fs) some benchmark
> >> results to compare the performance with and without XIP in a real
> >> embedded environment with bonnie++. You could use it as reference point.
> >
> > Well, so XIP helps. ext2 can do XIP too, IIRC. Is your performance
> > better than ext2?
> >
> > Wait... those numbers you pointed me... claim to be as slow as
> > 13MB/sec. That's very very bad. My harddrive is faster than that.
> 
> As I said I did the test in a real embedded environment so to have
> comparable result you should use the same environmente with the same
> tools, with the same workload and so on.

Even on real embedded hardware you should get better than 13MB/sec
writing to _RAM_. I guess something is seriously wrong with pramfs.

								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/