v3 logging speedups for 2.6

v3 logging speedups for 2.6

[Chris Mason]

Hello everyone,

This is part one of the data logging port to 2.6, it includes all the
cleanups and journal performance fixes.  Basically, it's everything
except the data=journal and data=ordered changes.

The 2.6 merge has a few new things as well, I've changed things around
so that metadata and log blocks will go onto the system dirty lists. 
This should make it easier to improve log performance, since most of the
work will be done outside the journal locks.

The code works for me, but should be considered highly experimental.  In
general, it is significantly faster than vanilla 2.6.0-test11, I've done
tests with dbench, iozone, synctest and a few others.  streaming writes
didn't see much improvement (they were already at disk speeds), but most
other tests did.

Anyway, for the truly daring among you:

ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mason/patches/data-logging/experimental/2.6.0-test11

The more bug reports I get now, the faster I'll be able to stabilize
things.  Get the latest reiserfsck and check your disks after each use.

-chris

Re: v3 logging speedups for 2.6

[Dieter Nützel]

Am Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2003 19:10 schrieb Chris Mason:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is part one of the data logging port to 2.6, it includes all the
> cleanups and journal performance fixes.  Basically, it's everything
> except the data=journal and data=ordered changes.
>
> The 2.6 merge has a few new things as well, I've changed things around
> so that metadata and log blocks will go onto the system dirty lists.
> This should make it easier to improve log performance, since most of the
> work will be done outside the journal locks.
>
> The code works for me, but should be considered highly experimental.  In
> general, it is significantly faster than vanilla 2.6.0-test11, I've done
> tests with dbench, iozone, synctest and a few others.  streaming writes
> didn't see much improvement (they were already at disk speeds), but most
> other tests did.
>
> Anyway, for the truly daring among you:
>
> ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mason/patches/data-logging/experimental/2.6.0-test11
>
> The more bug reports I get now, the faster I'll be able to stabilize
> things.  Get the latest reiserfsck and check your disks after each use.

Chris,

with which kernel should I start on my SuSE 9.0?
A special SuSE 2.6.0-test11 + data logging?
Or plane native? --- There are such much patches in SuSE kernels...

Greetings,
	Dieter
-- 
Dieter Nützel
@home: <Dieter.Nuetzel () hamburg ! de>

Re: v3 logging speedups for 2.6

[Chris Mason]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 13:30, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2003 19:10 schrieb Chris Mason:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > This is part one of the data logging port to 2.6, it includes all the
> > cleanups and journal performance fixes.  Basically, it's everything
> > except the data=journal and data=ordered changes.
> >
> > The 2.6 merge has a few new things as well, I've changed things around
> > so that metadata and log blocks will go onto the system dirty lists.
> > This should make it easier to improve log performance, since most of the
> > work will be done outside the journal locks.
> >
> > The code works for me, but should be considered highly experimental.  In
> > general, it is significantly faster than vanilla 2.6.0-test11, I've done
> > tests with dbench, iozone, synctest and a few others.  streaming writes
> > didn't see much improvement (they were already at disk speeds), but most
> > other tests did.
> >
> > Anyway, for the truly daring among you:
> >
> > ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mason/patches/data-logging/experimental/2.6.0-test11
> >
> > The more bug reports I get now, the faster I'll be able to stabilize
> > things.  Get the latest reiserfsck and check your disks after each use.
> 
> Chris,
> 
> with which kernel should I start on my SuSE 9.0?
> A special SuSE 2.6.0-test11 + data logging?
> Or plane native? --- There are such much patches in SuSE kernels...

For the moment you can only try it on vanilla 2.6.0-test11.   The suse
2.6 rpms have acls/xattrs and the new logging stuff won't apply.

Jeff and I will fix that when the logging merge is really complete.  At
the rate I'm going, that should be by the end of next week, this part of
the merge was the really tricky bits.

-chris

Re: v3 logging speedups for 2.6

[Dieter Nützel]

Am Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2003 19:42 schrieb Chris Mason:
> On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 13:30, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2003 19:10 schrieb Chris Mason:
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > This is part one of the data logging port to 2.6, it includes all the
> > > cleanups and journal performance fixes.  Basically, it's everything
> > > except the data=journal and data=ordered changes.
> > >
> > > The 2.6 merge has a few new things as well, I've changed things around
> > > so that metadata and log blocks will go onto the system dirty lists.
> > > This should make it easier to improve log performance, since most of
> > > the work will be done outside the journal locks.
> > >
> > > The code works for me, but should be considered highly experimental. 
> > > In general, it is significantly faster than vanilla 2.6.0-test11, I've
> > > done tests with dbench, iozone, synctest and a few others.  streaming
> > > writes didn't see much improvement (they were already at disk speeds),
> > > but most other tests did.
> > >
> > > Anyway, for the truly daring among you:
> > >
> > > ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mason/patches/data-logging/experimental/2.6.0-t
> > >est11
> > >
> > > The more bug reports I get now, the faster I'll be able to stabilize
> > > things.  Get the latest reiserfsck and check your disks after each use.
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > with which kernel should I start on my SuSE 9.0?
> > A special SuSE 2.6.0-test11 + data logging?
> > Or plane native? --- There are such much patches in SuSE kernels...
>
> For the moment you can only try it on vanilla 2.6.0-test11.   The suse
> 2.6 rpms have acls/xattrs and the new logging stuff won't apply.
>
> Jeff and I will fix that when the logging merge is really complete.  At
> the rate I'm going, that should be by the end of next week, this part of
> the merge was the really tricky bits.

Chris,

can we have something against Gerd Knorr's <kraxel@suse.de> SuSE 2.6.1 kernel 
version, please?

reiserfs-journal-writer
Works fine (applies), still compiling...;-)


reiserfs-logging
Show some rejects:

SunWave1 src/linux# patch -p1 -E -N < ../patches/reiserfs-logging
patching file fs/reiserfs/journal.c
Hunk #38 FAILED at 2217.
Hunk #39 succeeded at 2256 (offset 3 lines).
Hunk #40 FAILED at 2294.
Hunk #41 succeeded at 2423 with fuzz 1 (offset 40 lines).
Hunk #42 succeeded at 2438 (offset 40 lines).
Hunk #43 succeeded at 2456 (offset 40 lines).
Hunk #44 succeeded at 2480 (offset 40 lines).
Hunk #45 succeeded at 2519 (offset 40 lines).
Hunk #46 succeeded at 2581 (offset 56 lines).
Hunk #47 succeeded at 2606 (offset 56 lines).
Hunk #48 succeeded at 2657 (offset 60 lines).
Hunk #49 succeeded at 2727 (offset 60 lines).
Hunk #50 succeeded at 2744 (offset 60 lines).
Hunk #51 succeeded at 2754 (offset 60 lines).
Hunk #52 succeeded at 2792 (offset 60 lines).
Hunk #53 succeeded at 2832 (offset 60 lines).
Hunk #54 succeeded at 2856 (offset 60 lines).
Hunk #55 succeeded at 2888 (offset 60 lines).
Hunk #56 succeeded at 2897 (offset 60 lines).
Hunk #57 succeeded at 2985 (offset 60 lines).
Hunk #58 FAILED at 3036.
Hunk #59 succeeded at 3062 (offset 64 lines).
Hunk #60 succeeded at 3096 with fuzz 1 (offset 67 lines).
Hunk #61 succeeded at 3113 (offset 67 lines).
Hunk #62 succeeded at 3147 (offset 67 lines).
Hunk #63 succeeded at 3163 (offset 67 lines).
Hunk #64 succeeded at 3176 (offset 67 lines).
Hunk #65 succeeded at 3183 (offset 67 lines).
Hunk #66 succeeded at 3219 (offset 67 lines).
Hunk #67 succeeded at 3241 (offset 67 lines).
3 out of 67 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/reiserfs/journal.c.rej
patching file fs/reiserfs/objectid.c
patching file fs/reiserfs/super.c
Hunk #1 succeeded at 61 (offset 2 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 90 (offset 2 lines).
Hunk #3 succeeded at 844 with fuzz 1 (offset 35 lines).
Hunk #4 succeeded at 862 with fuzz 2 (offset 37 lines).
Hunk #5 succeeded at 1442 with fuzz 1 (offset 47 lines).
patching file fs/reiserfs/ibalance.c
patching file fs/reiserfs/procfs.c
patching file fs/reiserfs/fix_node.c
patching file fs/reiserfs/inode.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 960.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 1629 (offset 12 lines).
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/reiserfs/inode.c.rej
patching file fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c
patching file mm/page-writeback.c
patching file include/linux/reiserfs_fs_i.h
Hunk #2 FAILED at 50.
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file 
include/linux/reiserfs_fs_i.h.rej
patching file include/linux/reiserfs_fs_sb.h
Hunk #1 succeeded at 107 (offset 1 line).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 121 (offset 1 line).
Hunk #3 FAILED at 155.
Hunk #4 succeeded at 166 (offset 5 lines).
Hunk #5 succeeded at 207 (offset 5 lines).
Hunk #6 succeeded at 228 (offset 5 lines).
Hunk #7 succeeded at 421 (offset 9 lines).
Hunk #8 succeeded at 491 (offset 24 lines).
Hunk #9 succeeded at 500 (offset 24 lines).
1 out of 9 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file 
include/linux/reiserfs_fs_sb.h.rej
patching file include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h

I haven't the time to do it myself, today...

-- 
Dieter Nützel
@home: <Dieter.Nuetzel () hamburg ! de>

Re: v3 logging speedups for 2.6

[Dieter Nützel]

Am Montag, 12. Januar 2004 21:08 schrieb Dieter Nützel:
> Am Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2003 19:42 schrieb Chris Mason:
> > On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 13:30, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2003 19:10 schrieb Chris Mason:
> > > > Hello everyone,
> > > >
> > > > This is part one of the data logging port to 2.6, it includes all the
> > > > cleanups and journal performance fixes.  Basically, it's everything
> > > > except the data=journal and data=ordered changes.
> > > >
> > > > The 2.6 merge has a few new things as well, I've changed things
> > > > around so that metadata and log blocks will go onto the system dirty
> > > > lists. This should make it easier to improve log performance, since
> > > > most of the work will be done outside the journal locks.
> > > >
> > > > The code works for me, but should be considered highly experimental.
> > > > In general, it is significantly faster than vanilla 2.6.0-test11,
> > > > I've done tests with dbench, iozone, synctest and a few others. 
> > > > streaming writes didn't see much improvement (they were already at
> > > > disk speeds), but most other tests did.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, for the truly daring among you:
> > > >
> > > > ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mason/patches/data-logging/experimental/2.6.0
> > > >-t est11
> > > >
> > > > The more bug reports I get now, the faster I'll be able to stabilize
> > > > things.  Get the latest reiserfsck and check your disks after each
> > > > use.
> > >
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > with which kernel should I start on my SuSE 9.0?
> > > A special SuSE 2.6.0-test11 + data logging?
> > > Or plane native? --- There are such much patches in SuSE kernels...
> >
> > For the moment you can only try it on vanilla 2.6.0-test11.   The suse
> > 2.6 rpms have acls/xattrs and the new logging stuff won't apply.
> >
> > Jeff and I will fix that when the logging merge is really complete.  At
> > the rate I'm going, that should be by the end of next week, this part of
> > the merge was the really tricky bits.
>
> Chris,
>
> can we have something against Gerd Knorr's <kraxel@suse.de> SuSE 2.6.1
> kernel version, please?
>
> reiserfs-journal-writer
> Works fine (applies), still compiling...;-)

Works fine!

Greetings,
	Dieter

> reiserfs-logging
> Show some rejects:
>
> SunWave1 src/linux# patch -p1 -E -N < ../patches/reiserfs-logging
> patching file fs/reiserfs/journal.c
> Hunk #38 FAILED at 2217.
> Hunk #39 succeeded at 2256 (offset 3 lines).
> Hunk #40 FAILED at 2294.
> Hunk #41 succeeded at 2423 with fuzz 1 (offset 40 lines).
> Hunk #42 succeeded at 2438 (offset 40 lines).
> Hunk #43 succeeded at 2456 (offset 40 lines).
> Hunk #44 succeeded at 2480 (offset 40 lines).
> Hunk #45 succeeded at 2519 (offset 40 lines).
> Hunk #46 succeeded at 2581 (offset 56 lines).
> Hunk #47 succeeded at 2606 (offset 56 lines).
> Hunk #48 succeeded at 2657 (offset 60 lines).
> Hunk #49 succeeded at 2727 (offset 60 lines).
> Hunk #50 succeeded at 2744 (offset 60 lines).
> Hunk #51 succeeded at 2754 (offset 60 lines).
> Hunk #52 succeeded at 2792 (offset 60 lines).
> Hunk #53 succeeded at 2832 (offset 60 lines).
> Hunk #54 succeeded at 2856 (offset 60 lines).
> Hunk #55 succeeded at 2888 (offset 60 lines).
> Hunk #56 succeeded at 2897 (offset 60 lines).
> Hunk #57 succeeded at 2985 (offset 60 lines).
> Hunk #58 FAILED at 3036.
> Hunk #59 succeeded at 3062 (offset 64 lines).
> Hunk #60 succeeded at 3096 with fuzz 1 (offset 67 lines).
> Hunk #61 succeeded at 3113 (offset 67 lines).
> Hunk #62 succeeded at 3147 (offset 67 lines).
> Hunk #63 succeeded at 3163 (offset 67 lines).
> Hunk #64 succeeded at 3176 (offset 67 lines).
> Hunk #65 succeeded at 3183 (offset 67 lines).
> Hunk #66 succeeded at 3219 (offset 67 lines).
> Hunk #67 succeeded at 3241 (offset 67 lines).
> 3 out of 67 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> fs/reiserfs/journal.c.rej patching file fs/reiserfs/objectid.c
> patching file fs/reiserfs/super.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 61 (offset 2 lines).
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 90 (offset 2 lines).
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 844 with fuzz 1 (offset 35 lines).
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 862 with fuzz 2 (offset 37 lines).
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 1442 with fuzz 1 (offset 47 lines).
> patching file fs/reiserfs/ibalance.c
> patching file fs/reiserfs/procfs.c
> patching file fs/reiserfs/fix_node.c
> patching file fs/reiserfs/inode.c
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 960.
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 1629 (offset 12 lines).
> 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/reiserfs/inode.c.rej
> patching file fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c
> patching file mm/page-writeback.c
> patching file include/linux/reiserfs_fs_i.h
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 50.
> 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> include/linux/reiserfs_fs_i.h.rej
> patching file include/linux/reiserfs_fs_sb.h
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 107 (offset 1 line).
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 121 (offset 1 line).
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 155.
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 166 (offset 5 lines).
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 207 (offset 5 lines).
> Hunk #6 succeeded at 228 (offset 5 lines).
> Hunk #7 succeeded at 421 (offset 9 lines).
> Hunk #8 succeeded at 491 (offset 24 lines).
> Hunk #9 succeeded at 500 (offset 24 lines).
> 1 out of 9 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> include/linux/reiserfs_fs_sb.h.rej
> patching file include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h
>
> I haven't the time to do it myself, today...

-- 
Dieter Nützel
@home: <Dieter.Nuetzel () hamburg ! de>

Re: v3 logging speedups for 2.6

[Chris Mason]

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 02:07, Jens Benecke wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
> 
> > Hello everyone,
> > 
> > This is part one of the data logging port to 2.6, it includes all the
> > cleanups and journal performance fixes.  Basically, it's everything
> > except the data=journal and data=ordered changes.
> > ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mason/patches/data-logging
> experimental/2.6.0-test11
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Does it make sense to apply those to 2.6.1-mm2? 
> 
Not those at least, since I managed to screw up the diff.  I've got a
2.6.1 directory under experimental now with better patches.

I'm checking now to see if they apply to -mm2.

> Does "except the data=ordered changes" mean that data journalling ist _not_
> in there, or that that data journalling is there but hasn't been updated to
> what is there for 2.4.x yet?

Correct, but I'm almost there.  Thing got off track a lot during xmas
break.

-chris

Re: v3 logging speedups for 2.6

[Jens Benecke]

Chris Mason wrote:

>> > ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mason/patches/data-logging
experimental/2.6.0-test11
>> Does it make sense to apply those to 2.6.1-mm2?
>> 
> Not those at least, since I managed to screw up the diff.  I've got a
> 2.6.1 directory under experimental now with better patches.
> I'm checking now to see if they apply to -mm2.

I made a patch but it seems GMane doesn't forward attachments. There were
only three (somewhat trivial) rejects, so if you need the patch just say
so, I'll mail it privately.
 
>> Does "except the data=ordered changes" mean that data journalling ist
>> _not_ in there, or that that data journalling is there but hasn't been
>> updated to what is there for 2.4.x yet?
> Correct, but I'm almost there.  Thing got off track a lot during xmas
> break.

Great! :-)
Thanks!


-- 
Jens Benecke (jens at spamfreemail.de)
http://www.hitchhikers.de - Europaweite kostenlose Mitfahrzentrale
http://www.spamfreemail.de - 100% saubere Postfächer - garantiert!
http://www.rb-hosting.de - PHP ab 9? - SSH ab 19? - günstiger Traffic