[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:0.168 / U:4.204 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site