linux-kernel - Re: ext4 performance regression 2.6.27-stable versus 2.6.32 and later

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: <20100802160405.GE32757@khazad-dum.debian.net>
Date:	Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:04:05 -0300
From:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
To:	Kay Diederichs <Kay.Diederichs@...-konstanz.de>
Cc:	Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>,
	linux <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Karsten Schaefer <karsten.schaefer@...-konstanz.de>
Subject: Re: ext4 performance regression 2.6.27-stable versus 2.6.32 and
 later

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010, Kay Diederichs wrote:
> Performance-wise, we tried mounting with barrier versus nobarrier (or
> barrier=1 versus barrier=0) and re-did the 2.6.32+ benchmarks. It turned
> out that the benchmark difference with and without barrier is less than
> the variation between runs (which is much higher with 2.6.32+ than with
> 2.6.27-stable), so the influence seems to be minor.

Did you check interactions with the IO scheduler?

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh
--
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/