From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: [PATCH] new data logging and quota patches available Date: 24 Feb 2003 09:08:39 -0500 Message-ID: <1046095718.16047.440.camel@tiny.suse.com> References: <1045870331.16048.325.camel@tiny.suse.com> <200302221341.23799.Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de> <1045926958.16042.366.camel@tiny.suse.com> <1045930351.16042.377.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E581AD7.30000@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <3E581E07.3050407@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <1046020695.16048.409.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E59787F.2030009@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <3E59787F.2030009@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Manuel Krause Cc: reiserfs-list On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 20:42, Manuel Krause wrote: > On 02/23/2003 06:18 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > > I've attached a new kinoded-9.diff.gz, it will apply to both -aa and > > vanilla. Please give it a try. > > > > -chris > > Hi and thank you! > > I've replaced the old patch. And the problem is gone -- the partitions > are umountable again after copying. > Good to hear > I see a performance decrease with my copies in data=ordered mode by > about 7.5% compared to the 2.4.20-pre10-data-logging (it's about 19% > decrease for 2.4.21-pre4 since 2.4.19-data-logging). What is causing > this? Partly I can blame it on the disk content distribution that > changed. If I removed the kinoded related patches would the throughput > rate increase? That's odd, tests here show performance increasing but I'm testing 2.4.21-pre4 + old data logging vs 2.4.21-pre4 + new data logging Could I talk you into trying to narrow this down? Perhaps starting with a benchmark of the same dataset on both kernels? The new data logging code kicks kreiserfsd in sooner to service async commits. So if your benchmark lasts < 30 seconds, it is possible the older kernels never did writes at all during the run. -chris