linux-kernel - Re: AW: Slow I/O on USB media after commit f664a3cc17b7d0a2bc3b3ab96181e1029b0ec0e6

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]

Date:   Thu, 28 Nov 2019 08:46:57 +0100
From:   Andrea Vai <andrea.vai@...pv.it>
To:     "Schmid, Carsten" <Carsten_Schmid@...tor.com>,
        Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
Cc:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        SCSI development list <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...ium.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Hans Holmberg <Hans.Holmberg@....com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: AW: Slow I/O on USB media after commit
 f664a3cc17b7d0a2bc3b3ab96181e1029b0ec0e6

Il giorno mer, 27/11/2019 alle 08.14 +0000, Schmid, Carsten ha
scritto:
> > 
> > > Then I started another set of 100 trials and let them run
> tonight, and
> > > the first 10 trials were around 1000s, then gradually decreased
> to
> > > ~300s, and finally settled around 200s with some trials below
> 70-80s.
> > > This to say, times are extremely variable and for the first time
> I
> > > noticed a sort of "performance increase" with time.
> > >
> > 
> > The sheer volume of testing (probably some terabytes by now) would
> > exercise the wear leveling algorithm in the FTL.
> > 
> But with "old kernel" the copy operation still is "fast", as far as
> i understood.
> If FTL (e.g. wear leveling) would slow down, we would see that also
> in
> the old kernel, right?
> 
> Andrea, can you confirm that the same device used with the old fast
> kernel is still fast today?

Yes, it is still fast. Just ran a 100 trials test and got an average
of 70 seconds with standard deviation = 6 seconds, aligned with the
past values of the same kernel.

Thanks,
Andrea