linux-kernel - ext4 bug ? "Intel 320 SSD write performance

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAF78GY1_HwP2QZsMLqHeJechjps44Jq2o1VDSFC0TriXB1riPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:38:37 +0100
From:	Vincent Pelletier <plr.vincent@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: ext4 bug ? "Intel 320 SSD write performance – contd."

Hi.

Reading this blog post[1], I thought the "2nd iteration" results could be
considered a bug in mkfs.ext4 (and possibly any mkfs implementation):
shouldn't mkfs run [FI]TRIM on its target before creating filesystem
structure ?

Disclaimers:
I don't know much about mkfs nor in-kernel fs support to tell which part
should implement this - so I cannot even tell for sure this isn't done
already.
I have no idea how expensive those new calls would be (in general, this
means trimming a _lot_ of pages...).
I don't know how other filesystems/os behave on such bench. But I
don't think this is a problem any SSD could solve at its level.

[1] http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2011/09/28/intel-320-ssd-write-performance-contd/

Regards,
-- 
Vincent Pelletier
--
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/