lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.6.6-mm5 oops mounting ext3 or reiserfs with -o barrier
    On Sun, May 23 2004, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote:
    > On Sunday 23 May 2004 17:45, Jens Axboe wrote:
    > > On Sun, May 23 2004, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote:
    > > > On Sunday 23 May 2004 12:03, Jens Axboe wrote:
    > > > > Here's a rolled up updated version that tries to get async notification
    > > > > of missing barrier support working as well. reiser currently doesn't
    > > > > cope with that correctly (fails mount), ext3 seems to but gets stuck.
    > > > > Andrew has that fixed already, I think :-)
    > > > >
    > > > > Lorenzo, can you test this on top of 2.6.6-mm5?
    > > >
    > > > Problem fixed, but there is some performance regression
    > > >
    > > > ext3 (default)
    > > > untar read copy remove
    > > > 0m53.861s 0m24.942s 1m30.164s 0m20.664s
    > > > 0m7.132s 0m1.191s 0m0.766s 0m0.076s
    > > > 0m5.807s 0m3.345s 0m9.996s 0m1.719s
    > > >
    > > > ext3 (-o barrier=1)
    > > > untar read copy remove
    > > > 0m52.117s 0m28.502s 1m51.153s 0m25.561s
    > > > 0m7.231s 0m1.209s 0m0.738s 0m0.071s
    > > > 0m6.117s 0m3.191s 0m9.347s 0m1.635s
    > >
    > > Not sure what you mean here
    >
    > Untar, read, copy and remove the OpenOffice tarball, each test
    > run with cold cache (mount/umount cycle).

    I understand that, I just don't see how you can call it a regression.
    It's a given that barrier will be slower.

    > > but yes of course -o barrier=1 is going to
    > > be slower than default + write back caching. What you should compare is
    > > without barrier support and hdparm -W0 /dev/hdX, if -o barrier=1 with
    > > caching on is slower then that's a regression :-)
    >
    > hdparm -W0 /dev/hda
    >
    > ext3 (-o barrier=0)
    > untar read copy remove
    > 1m55.190s 0m27.633s 2m19.072s 0m21.348s
    > 0m7.081s 0m1.189s 0m0.724s 0m0.083s
    > 0m6.502s 0m3.244s 0m9.715s 0m1.633s
    >
    > ext3 (-o barrier=1)
    > untar read copy remove
    > 1m55.358s 0m23.831s 2m16.674s 0m21.508s
    > 0m7.153s 0m1.200s 0m0.748s 0m0.087s
    > 0m6.775s 0m3.358s 0m9.985s 0m1.781s
    >
    >
    > haparm -W1 /dev/hda
    >
    > ext3 (-o barrier=0)
    > untar read copy remove
    > 0m55.405s 0m26.230s 1m28.765s 0m20.766s
    > 0m7.195s 0m1.199s 0m0.773s 0m0.081s
    > 0m6.502s 0m3.359s 0m9.672s 0m1.868s
    >
    > ext3 (-o barrier=1)
    > untar read copy remove
    > 0m52.117s 0m28.502s 1m51.153s 0m25.561s
    > 0m7.231s 0m1.209s 0m0.738s 0m0.071s
    > 0m6.117s 0m3.191s 0m9.347s 0m1.635s

    Your results look a bit over the map, how many runs are your averaging
    for each one?

    --
    Jens Axboe

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.024 / U:0.252 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site