On Fri, 23 Aug 2019, Andrea Vai wrote:
> Il giorno mar, 20/08/2019 alle 13.13 -0400, Alan Stern ha scritto:
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, Andrea Vai wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alan,
> > > I attach the two traces, collected as follows:
> > >
> > > - start the trace;
> > > - wait 10 seconds;
> > > - plug the drive;
> > > - wait 5 seconds;
> > > - mount the drive;
> > > - wait 5 seconds;
> > > - copy a 500 byte file;
> > > - wait 5 seconds;
> > > - unmount the drive;
> > > - wait 5 seconds;
> > > - stop the trace.
> >
> > Still no noticeable differences between the two traces. They both
> > include a 1.2 second delay shortly after the writing starts, and
> > the
> > initialization sequences are the same.
> >
> > I really don't know where to look for this. The only thing I can
> > think
> > of at this point is to repeat this test, but using a file large
> > enough
> > for the difference in writing speed to show up plainly.
> >
> > By the way, it would be best to run the tests with the smallest
> > possible number of other USB devices plugged in. None at all, if
> > you
> > can arrange it.
>
> Thanks, I went some steps further on this.
> The following considerations all apply to the "bad" kernel.
>
> Increasing the filesize lead me to find out that using a file sized
> less than roughly 10MB the problem does not happen.
>
> I found these results by making sets of 10 tries for each filesize,
> using a filesize of 1kB, 10kB, 100kB, 1MB, 10MB, 100MB, 500MB (so, we
> have 70 usbmon logs on these). If we define "fast" a copy that takes
> (roughly(*)) no more time to complete than all the other tries in its
> set, and "slow" elsewhere (=one or more tries in its set are
> (sensibly(*)) faster), I noticed that in each set with a filesize of
> 10MB or more the behavior can be very different: sometimes the copy is
> still "fast", sometimes is "slow". The frequency of the "slow" copies
> increases with the filesize. Also, among the "slow" copies in a set,
> the time can be very different.
>
> Also, I found that if the file is not present on the target location
> (i.e. the USB pendrive), the problem does not happen (I have ten
> usbmon logs here, taken in the worst scenario (500MB filesize)).
>
> Tell me which log(s) would you like me to send you: I can sum up here
> all the sets of tries, and the time their copies took to complete (in
> seconds):
>
> 1kB: 26, 27, 26, 26, 27, 26, 26, 27, 26, 27
> 10kB: 27, 27, 26, 26, 27, 26, 27, 26, 27, 27
> 100kB: 26, 26, 26, 27, 26, 26, 26, 27, 27, 27
> 1MB: 26, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 26
> 10MB: 27, 31, 37, 27, 38, 27, 39, 27, 30, 28
> 100MB: 32, 32, 144, 32, 145, 32, 123, 32, 153, 123
> 500MB: 56, 1396, 747, 131, 795, 764, 292, 1021, 807, 516
>
> Also, note that the first copy is always "fast", because each file was
> initially not present on the pendrive. As said, I did one test of 10
> tries by deleting the file on the pendrive before copying it again,
> and the results are
>
> 500MB: 56, 56, 57, 57, 56, 56, 60, 25***, 55, 56 (***Note the "fake"
> 25s, doesn't matter because I forgot to plug the pendrive :-/ )
>
> I have made a script to semi-automate all the tests I have done. I
> attach the script here, so anyone interested could check it for any
> mistake (remember I am not very skilled so I may have wrote buggy
> code, done wrong assumptions, etc.). Please note that I decreased the
> time between the trace start and the drive plugging from 10s to 5s
> (simply to reduce the time needed to me to look at the countdown). Of
> course I can do again the test(s) you need with a bigger amount of
> $wait.
>
> The script has been run with the command
>
> # for k in {1..10}; do size=1000; ./test_usbmon $size && ping -a -c 5 8.8.8.8 ; done
> (example for 1kB filesize)
>
> or, in the set of "delete before copy",
>
> # for k in {1..10}; do size=500000000; ./cancellaTestFile $size && ./test_usbmon $size && ping -a -c 5 8.8.8.8 ; done
>
> The ping command is there just to have a sound alarm when finished.
>
> I also attach the script to delete the file ("cancellaTestFile").
>
> I took care to plug the pendrive exactly at the end of the countdown,
> to keep the times in the logs more simple to detect and manage by you.
>
> I have also logged all the terminal output log of the script.
>
> Last note: I ran all the tests without any other USB device connected
> but the pendrive (well, actually there is a card reader connected to
> the internal USB connector, but on another bus. I didn't want to open
> the case and disconnect it but of course I can do it if needed).
> Thanks for pointing it out.
>
> Thanks, and bye
> Andrea
>
> (*) as an example, on a set that shows the total elapsed time in
> seconds being
>
> 26, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 26
>
> I have assumed all of the copies to be "fast", while in the set
>
> 32, 32, 144, 32, 145, 32, 123, 32, 153, 123
>
> I have assumed 5 of the copies as "fast" (the ones that took 32
> seconds) and the other "slow". Not going to deepen in some standard
> deviation evaluation, etc., but if you'd like to I can provide some
> more scientific detailed data :-)
Wow, that sounds like a lot of work.
Let's start with the 39-second run for the 10-MB file. If you can put
the trace files on a server somewhere, available for downloading, that
would avoid sending a lot of uninteresting data to the mailing list.
Odd that the delays never occur when you're writing a new file. (If
nothing else, that gives you a way to work around the problem!) It's
hard to say what it means, though. Maybe the flash drive doesn't like
overwriting used blocks.
Alan Stern
