[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Ext2-devel] Re: Shrinking ext3 directories

    On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 05:28:28AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:

    > I ran a bakeoff between your new half-md4 and dx_hack_hash on Ext2. As
    > predicted, half-md4 does produce very even bucket distributions. For 200,000
    > creates:
    > half-md4: 2872 avg bytes filled per 4k block (70%)
    > dx_hack_hash: 2853 avg bytes filled per 4k block (69%)
    > but guess which was faster overall?
    > half-md4: user 0.43 system 6.88 real 0:07.33 CPU 99%
    > dx_hack_hash: user 0.43 system 6.40 real 0:06.82 CPU 100%
    > This is quite reproducible: dx_hack_hash is always faster by about 6%. This
    > must be due entirely to the difference in hashing cost, since half-md4
    > produces measurably better distributions. Now what do we do?

    I want to get this thing tested!

    There are far too many factors for this to be resolved very quickly.
    In reality, there will be a lot of disk cost under load which you
    don't see in benchmarks, too. We also know for a fact that the early
    hashes used in Reiserfs were quick but were vulnerable to terribly bad
    behaviour under certain application workloads. With the half-md4, at
    least we can expect decent worst-case behaviour unless we're under
    active attack (ie. only maliscious apps get hurt).

    I think the md4 is a safer bet until we know more, so I'd vote that we
    stick with the ext3 cvs code which uses hash version #1 for that, and
    defer anything else until we've seen more --- the hash versioning lets
    us do that safely.

    > By the way, I'm running about 37 usec per create here, on a 1GHz/1GB PIII,
    > with Ext2. I think most of the difference vs your timings is that your test
    > code is eating a lot of cpu.

    I was getting nearer to 50usec system time, but on an athlon k7-700,
    so those timings are pretty comparable. Mine was ext3, too, which
    accounts for a bit. The difference between that and wall-clock time
    was all just idle time, which I think was due to using "touch"/"rm"
    --- ie. there was a lot of inode table write activity due to the files
    being created/deleted, and that was forcing a journal wrap before the
    end of the test. That effect is not visible on ext2, of course.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.022 / U:18.120 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site