[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Performance of ext4
    Theodore Tso wrote:
    > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:42:36AM +0000, Holger Kiehl wrote:
    >> Note how the size of file changes from
    >> 9230 before the test to 8208 bytes after the test. Also note the
    >> date both have the same timestamp "2008-06-17 04:35". I have made a
    >> copy of before the test and compared it
    >> with that after the test. The file is just truncated by 1022 bytes
    >> and there is no garbage.
    > So the corruption is always a truncation, correct?
    > Did you notice the problem with ext4 w/o the patch queue? I have a
    > suspicion that the problem may have been introduced by the delayed
    > allocation code, but I don't have hard evidence. When you rerun your
    > benchmark (which seems to be the closest thing we have to a
    > reproduction case), it would be interesting to know if the problem
    > goes away with -o nodelalloc (again, it would localize where we need
    > to look).
    > Thanks, regards,

    It might be worth runninga "simple" fsx under your kernel too; last time
    I tested fsx it was still happy and it exercises fs ops (including
    truncate) at random...


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-19 18:55    [W:0.021 / U:2.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site