linux-kernel - Re: BTRFS: Unbelievably slow with kvm/qemu

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: <4C3B1B62.3080900@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:40:50 +0400
From:	Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
To:	Giangiacomo Mariotti <gg.mariotti@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>
Subject: Re: BTRFS: Unbelievably slow with kvm/qemu

Giangiacomo Mariotti wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru> wrote:
>> This looks quite similar to a problem with ext4 and O_SYNC which I
>> reported earlier but no one cared to answer (or read?) - there:
>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/42758
>> (sent to qemu-devel and linux-fsdevel lists - Cc'd too).  You can
>> try a few other options, esp. cache=none and re-writing some guest
>> files to verify.
>>
>> /mjt
>>
> Either way, changing to cache=none I suspect wouldn't tell me much,
> because if it's as slow as before, it's still unusable and if instead
> it's even slower, well it'd be even more unusable, so I wouldn't be
> able to tell the difference.

Actually it's not that simple.

>     What I can say for certain is that with
> the exact same virtual hd file, same options, same system, but on an
> ext3 fs there's no problem at all, on a Btrfs is not just slower, it
> takes ages.

It is exactly the same with ext4 vs ext3.  But only on metadata-intensitive
operations (for qcow2 image).  Once you allocate space, it becomes fast,
and _especially_ fast with cache=none.  Actually, it looks like O_SYNC
(default cache mode) is _slower_ on ext4 than O_DIRECT (cache=none).

(And yes, I know O_DIRECT does NOT imply O_SYNC and vise versa).

/mjt
--
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/