Karsten Weiss wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>> => The problem shows only with the CentOS / Red Hat 5.4 kernels (including >>> RH's test kernel 2.6.18-190.el5). Aadmittedly ext4 is only a technology >>> preview in 5.4... >>> >>> I've also tried the latest CentOS 5.3 kernel-2.6.18-128.7.1.el5 but >>> couldn't mount the device (with -t ext4dev). >>> >>> 2.6.18-164.el5 (the initial CentOS 5.4 kernel) has the bug, too. >>> >>> I'm willing to test patches if somebody wants to debug the problem. >> Ok, that's interesting. We've not had bona-fide RHEL customers report >> the problem, but then maybe it hasn't been tested this way. > > I think so because, as I mentioned, the issue can be reproduced with the > RH test kernel 2.6.18-190.el5 x86_64 (http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/el5/), > too. > >> 2.6.18-178.el5 and beyond is based on the 2.6.32 codebase for ext4. >> >> Testing generic 2.6.32 might also be interesting as a datapoint, >> if you're willing. > > Sorry for the delay, here's the (good) 2.6.32 result: > > # /usr/bin/time bash -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/large/10GB bs=1M count=10000 && sync" > 10000+0 records in > 10000+0 records out > 10485760000 bytes (10 GB) copied, 46.3369 seconds, 226 MB/s > 0.00user 14.17system 0:59.53elapsed 23%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 6224maxresident)k > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+1045minor)pagefaults 0swaps > > To summarize: > > Bad: 2.6.18-164.el5 (CentOS) > Bad: 2.6.18-164.11.1el5 (CentOS) > Bad: 2.6.18-190.el5 (RH) > Good: 2.6.32 > Good: 2.6.33 > Thanks, I'll have to investigate that. I guess something may have gotten lost in translation in the 2.6.32->2.6.18 backport..... -Eric -- 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
