[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.6.0 - Watchdog patches (BK consistency checks)
    On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 12:56:32PM -0700, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
    > On Tue, Dec 30 at 13:13, Andy Isaacson wrote:
    > >On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 08:36:15AM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
    > >The consistency check definitely should not take 15 minutes. It should
    > >be (much) less than 30 seconds. What is the hardware you're running on?
    > >
    > >I'm running on an Athlon 2 GHz (XP 2400+) with 512MB and a 7200RPM IDE
    > >disk, and I can do a complete clone (with full data copy and consistency
    > >check) of the 2.4 tree in 1:40. That was with cold caches; with the
    > >sfile copies and "checkout:get", a half-gig isn't enough to cache
    > >everything. The consistency check is about 19 seconds (bk -r check -acv).
    > For what it is worth:
    > AMD Duron 950MHz, 768MB RAM
    > 7200RPM 80GB Quantum Viper IDE drive, 26% full
    > phat-penguin:~/src/linux-2.5> time bk -r check -acv
    > 100% |=================================================================| OK
    > 42.710u 5.770s 2:04.63 38.8% 0+0k 0+0io 74078pf+0w
    > over 2 minutes of wall time, 42 seconds of "user" time... (if I'm reading it right), without primed disk caches.
    > The 2nd run, half a minute later:
    > phat-penguin:~/src/linux-2.5> time bk -r check -acv
    > 100% |=================================================================| OK
    > 41.900u 3.080s 0:45.53 98.7% 0+0k 0+0io 74078pf+0w
    > ...would appear to show that BK's checksumming, on my system, is
    > constrained near 41 seconds of calculation time, and the difference
    > between the user and the wall-clock time is basically time spent
    > waiting for the disk to do all its reads.
    > I guess in that case, it'd be interesting to see what the user and
    > wall times were for the original poster who reported a 15+ minute
    > integrity check.

    That's basically right, except that if you don't have enough memory to
    keep bk's working set in memory, then you're paging and performance
    starts to suck.

    I didn't realize that the cpu-bound portion of the check would scale so
    closely with CPU speed, but it looks like the scaling is almost dead-on;
    18.4/41.9 = .439
    950/2000 = .475

    So I was wrong to say "less than 30 seconds". "If you have a fast CPU
    and enough memory", I guess. But the memory matters a lot more than the

    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 13:59    [W:0.054 / U:101.324 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site