Re: suspiciously good fsck times?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Based on the graphs which Eric posted, One interesting thing I think
you'll find if you repeat the ext3 experiment with e2fsck -t -t is
that pass2 will be about seven times longer than pass1.  (Which is
backwards from most e2fsck runs, where pass2 is about half pass 1's
run time --- although obviously that depends on how many directory
blocks you have.)

Yes, some kind of reservation windows would help on ext3 --- but the
question is whether such a change would be too-specific for this
benchmark or not.  Most of the time directories don't grow to such a
huge size.  So if you use a smallish (around 8 blocks, say) for many
directories this might lead to more filesystem fragmentation that in
the long run would cause the filesystem not to age well; it also
wouldn't help much when you have over 11 million files in the
directory, and a directory with over 100,000 blocks.

I don't think delayed allocation is what's helping here either,
because the journal will force the directory blocks to be placed as
soon as we commit a transaction.  I think what's saving us here is
that flex_bg and mballoc is separating the directory blocks from the
data blocks, allowng the directory blocks to be closely packed
together.

					- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux