Re: reiserfsck --rebuild-tree on a big filesystem

[Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>]

Hello!

On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:56:25PM +0100, Mira Tempir wrote:

> | > Can be the speed affected with high usage of FS (about 99%)? 
> | Not at this stage at least. How much RAM do you have?
> I'm sure, this is not the bottleneck. There is more than 1GB cached
> memory for fsck now.

Ok, just making sure.

> | BTW, what is the CPU usage when the speed is degraded?
> Nothing strange - about 80% during whole process.

Even when the speed is degraded to ~26 blocks/sec?

> | (have you already interrupted reiserfsck process? if not then attach to it with
> | gd and obtain a pair of stacktraces for us please.)
> Well, I've run fsck for many times last few days. I hope, this is not a
> problem.

Hm.
Can you make a FS snapshot for us please?
Please run debugreiserfs -p /dev/your_device | gzip -9c >metadata.gz
and make the file available for download.
I hope this won't take much time, if it will we may ask for some remote
access to that box if possible.

> I'm not sure, if this is what you wanted and how this can help:
> (gdb) bt
> #0  0x40078fc5 in memmove () at ../sysdeps/generic/memmove.c:108
> #1  0x805881f in __mark_objectid_really_used (map=0x8110b20, id=413432, pos=27804) 
> 	at uobjectid.c:203
> #2  0x80588e4 in mark_objectid_really_used (map=0x8110b20, id=413432) 
> 	at uobjectid.c:240
> #3  0x804e5ed in pass0_correct_leaf (fs=0x808a9d8, bh=0x80fc0c4) 
> 	at pass0.c:1254
> #4  0x804ed93 in do_pass_0 (fs=0x808a9d8) at pass0.c:1498
> #5  0x804fda2 in pass_0 (fs=0x808a9d8) at pass0.c:1893
> #6  0x804a851 in rebuild_tree (fs=0x808a9d8) at main.c:737
> #7  0x804b7bf in main (argc=3, argv=0xbffffcd4) at main.c:1102
> 
> (gdb) bt
> #0  0x40078fc5 in memmove () at ../sysdeps/generic/memmove.c:108
> #1  0x805881f in __mark_objectid_really_used (map=0x8110b20, id=4210980, pos=139062)
>     at uobjectid.c:203
> #2  0x80588e4 in mark_objectid_really_used (map=0x8110b20, id=4210980) 
> 	 at uobjectid.c:240
> #3  0x804e5a6 in pass0_correct_leaf (fs=0x808a9d8, bh=0x808ab18) at pass0.c:1251
> #4  0x804ed93 in do_pass_0 (fs=0x808a9d8) at pass0.c:1498
> #5  0x804fda2 in pass_0 (fs=0x808a9d8) at pass0.c:1893
> #6  0x804a851 in rebuild_tree (fs=0x808a9d8) at main.c:737
> #7  0x804b7bf in main (argc=3, argv=0xbffffcd4) at main.c:1102
> 
> 
> Maybe more interesting could be output from profiler:
> 
> Flat profile:
> 
> Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
>   %   cumulative   self              self     total           
>  time   seconds   seconds    calls  ms/call  ms/call  name    
>  80.52    118.11   118.11   174768     0.68     0.68  memmove
>   8.69    130.86    12.75                             __mcount_internal
>   2.07    133.89     3.03    94972     0.03     0.03  read
>   1.55    136.16     2.27                             mcount
>   1.35    138.14     1.98    96611     0.02     0.02  memset
>   1.21    139.92     1.78 64747384     0.00     0.00  reiserfs_bitmap_test_bit
>   0.68    140.92     1.00        1  1000.00  2809.34  reiserfs_fetch_ondisk_bitmap
>   0.52    141.68     0.76 24852879     0.00     0.00  comp_ids
>   0.50    142.42     0.74    72662     0.01     1.69  pass0_correct_leaf
>   0.28    142.83     0.41 13535446     0.00     0.00  get_type
>   0.26    143.21     0.38  1510128     0.00     0.00  reiserfs_bin_search
>   0.20    143.50     0.29    94971     0.00     0.00  llseek
>   0.16    143.73     0.23  2254456     0.00     0.00  block_of_bitmap
>   0.15    143.95     0.22   351991     0.00     0.00  _IO_vfscanf
>   0.12    144.12     0.17   354988     0.00     0.00  vfprintf
>   0.10    144.26     0.14  2235113     0.00     0.00  reiserfs_bitmap_set_bit
>   0.09    144.39     0.13   704574     0.00     0.00  _IO_str_init_static
>   0.09    144.52     0.13    92006     0.00     0.00  time
> ...
> Is it ok with memmove ?

Vitaly, what do you think about these?

Bye,
    Oleg