* reiserfs tails and disk space @ 2006-01-17 18:15 Bruce Guenter 2006-01-17 18:58 ` Hans Reiser 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Bruce Guenter @ 2006-01-17 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: reiserfs-list [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1740 bytes --] Hi. I've been running a few tests with reiserfs and tails, and have been unable to create a setup where the use (or lack) of tails results in a significant difference in the amount of disk space used. Here's what I've done: 1. Create a fresh 1GB filesystem (in a file on loopback), using reiserfs with no options. 2. Mount the filesystem with either no options, "notail", "tails=off", "tails=on", or "tails=small". 3. Unpack a sources tarball onto the filesystem, consisting of two fully compiled versions of the linux kernel. The tarball contains 47996 files and 3321 directories totalling about 660MB of space. 4. Measure the free disk space using df. 5. Use dd to fill up the free disk space and count how many 1kB blocks it could write. In all of the tests, the result was within 12kB of each other. In fact, the tests with "notail" or "tails=off" options had more usable disk space than when using tails. Results: Options 1K-blocks Used Available default 1023964 645988 377976 notail 1023964 645988 377976 tails=off 1023964 645996 377968 tails=on 1023964 646000 377964 tails=small 1023964 645996 377968 default 377600+0 records out notail 377600+0 records out tails=off 377592+0 records out tails=on 377588+0 records out tails=small 377592+0 records out I've put the log files and scripts up for review at http://untroubled.org/reiserfsdf/ I'm using Gentoo Linux, kernel 2.6.14-gentoo-r5 Am I missing something, is this an expected result, or is something broken? Thanks. -- Bruce Guenter <bruce@untroubled.org> http://untroubled.org/ OpenPGP key: 699980E8 / D0B7 C8DD 365D A395 29DA 2E2A E96F B2DC 6999 80E8 [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: reiserfs tails and disk space 2006-01-17 18:15 reiserfs tails and disk space Bruce Guenter @ 2006-01-17 18:58 ` Hans Reiser 2006-01-18 18:34 ` Vitaly Fertman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Hans Reiser @ 2006-01-17 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Guenter; +Cc: reiserfs-list, vitaly The result is not expected, Vitaly please look into it. Hans Bruce Guenter wrote: >Hi. > >I've been running a few tests with reiserfs and tails, and have been >unable to create a setup where the use (or lack) of tails results in a >significant difference in the amount of disk space used. > >Here's what I've done: > >1. Create a fresh 1GB filesystem (in a file on loopback), using reiserfs >with no options. > >2. Mount the filesystem with either no options, "notail", "tails=off", >"tails=on", or "tails=small". > >3. Unpack a sources tarball onto the filesystem, consisting of two fully >compiled versions of the linux kernel. The tarball contains 47996 files >and 3321 directories totalling about 660MB of space. > >4. Measure the free disk space using df. > >5. Use dd to fill up the free disk space and count how many 1kB blocks >it could write. > >In all of the tests, the result was within 12kB of each other. In fact, >the tests with "notail" or "tails=off" options had more usable disk >space than when using tails. > >Results: > >Options 1K-blocks Used Available >default 1023964 645988 377976 >notail 1023964 645988 377976 >tails=off 1023964 645996 377968 >tails=on 1023964 646000 377964 >tails=small 1023964 645996 377968 > >default 377600+0 records out >notail 377600+0 records out >tails=off 377592+0 records out >tails=on 377588+0 records out >tails=small 377592+0 records out > >I've put the log files and scripts up for review at > http://untroubled.org/reiserfsdf/ >I'm using Gentoo Linux, kernel 2.6.14-gentoo-r5 > >Am I missing something, is this an expected result, or is something >broken? > >Thanks. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: reiserfs tails and disk space 2006-01-17 18:58 ` Hans Reiser @ 2006-01-18 18:34 ` Vitaly Fertman 2006-01-19 19:53 ` Bruce Guenter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Vitaly Fertman @ 2006-01-18 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Guenter; +Cc: Hans Reiser, reiserfs-list [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1975 bytes --] On Tuesday 17 January 2006 21:58, Hans Reiser wrote: > The result is not expected, Vitaly please look into it. > > Hans > > Bruce Guenter wrote: > > >Hi. > > > >I've been running a few tests with reiserfs and tails, and have been > >unable to create a setup where the use (or lack) of tails results in a > >significant difference in the amount of disk space used. thank you for the report, the attached patch should fix the broken mount options. please try it. > >Here's what I've done: > > > >1. Create a fresh 1GB filesystem (in a file on loopback), using reiserfs > >with no options. > > > >2. Mount the filesystem with either no options, "notail", "tails=off", > >"tails=on", or "tails=small". > > > >3. Unpack a sources tarball onto the filesystem, consisting of two fully > >compiled versions of the linux kernel. The tarball contains 47996 files > >and 3321 directories totalling about 660MB of space. > > > >4. Measure the free disk space using df. > > > >5. Use dd to fill up the free disk space and count how many 1kB blocks > >it could write. > > > >In all of the tests, the result was within 12kB of each other. In fact, > >the tests with "notail" or "tails=off" options had more usable disk > >space than when using tails. > > > >Results: > > > >Options 1K-blocks Used Available > >default 1023964 645988 377976 > >notail 1023964 645988 377976 > >tails=off 1023964 645996 377968 > >tails=on 1023964 646000 377964 > >tails=small 1023964 645996 377968 > > > >default 377600+0 records out > >notail 377600+0 records out > >tails=off 377592+0 records out > >tails=on 377588+0 records out > >tails=small 377592+0 records out > > > >I've put the log files and scripts up for review at > > http://untroubled.org/reiserfsdf/ > >I'm using Gentoo Linux, kernel 2.6.14-gentoo-r5 > > > >Am I missing something, is this an expected result, or is something > >broken? > > > >Thanks. > > > > > > > -- Vitaly [-- Attachment #2: linux-2.6.14-reiserfs-mount-options-fix.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 436 bytes --] --- linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm3-clean/fs/reiserfs/super.c 2005-12-21 23:57:54.000000000 +0300 +++ linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm3/fs/reiserfs/super.c 2006-01-18 21:28:25.206460792 +0300 @@ -1131,7 +1131,7 @@ REISERFS_SB(s)->s_mount_opt &= ~(1 << REISERFS_ATTRS); } } else if (le32_to_cpu(rs->s_flags) & reiserfs_attrs_cleared) { - REISERFS_SB(s)->s_mount_opt |= REISERFS_ATTRS; + REISERFS_SB(s)->s_mount_opt |= (1 << REISERFS_ATTRS); } } ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: reiserfs tails and disk space 2006-01-18 18:34 ` Vitaly Fertman @ 2006-01-19 19:53 ` Bruce Guenter 2006-01-19 22:00 ` Vitaly Fertman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Bruce Guenter @ 2006-01-19 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: reiserfs-list [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 487 bytes --] On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:34:49PM +0300, Vitaly Fertman wrote: > thank you for the report, the attached patch should fix > the broken mount options. please try it. It does indeed fix the problem. What other mount options would have been affected by this problem? In what version of the kernel was this problem introduced? Thanks. -- Bruce Guenter <bruce@untroubled.org> http://untroubled.org/ OpenPGP key: 699980E8 / D0B7 C8DD 365D A395 29DA 2E2A E96F B2DC 6999 80E8 [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: reiserfs tails and disk space 2006-01-19 19:53 ` Bruce Guenter @ 2006-01-19 22:00 ` Vitaly Fertman 2006-01-21 18:08 ` Laurent Riffard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Vitaly Fertman @ 2006-01-19 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: reiserfs-list; +Cc: Bruce Guenter On Thursday 19 January 2006 22:53, Bruce Guenter wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:34:49PM +0300, Vitaly Fertman wrote: > > thank you for the report, the attached patch should fix > > the broken mount options. please try it. > > It does indeed fix the problem. What other mount options would have > been affected by this problem? it does not seem to brake anything else. > In what version of the kernel was this > problem introduced? 2.6.13. -- Vitaly ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: reiserfs tails and disk space 2006-01-19 22:00 ` Vitaly Fertman @ 2006-01-21 18:08 ` Laurent Riffard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Laurent Riffard @ 2006-01-21 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: reiserfs-list; +Cc: Bruce Guenter Le 19.01.2006 23:00, Vitaly Fertman a écrit : > On Thursday 19 January 2006 22:53, Bruce Guenter wrote: > >>On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:34:49PM +0300, Vitaly Fertman wrote: >> >>>thank you for the report, the attached patch should fix >>>the broken mount options. please try it. >> >>It does indeed fix the problem. What other mount options would have >>been affected by this problem? > > > it does not seem to brake anything else. > > >>In what version of the kernel was this >>problem introduced? > > > 2.6.13. > This patch have been pushed into 2.6.16-rc1-mm2, and now I have some permissions problems : I'm not able to update some files or directories althought the permissions seems OK. Not all files are impacted. Reverting someone-broke-reiserfs-v3-mount-options-this-fixes-it.patch fixes my permissions problems. I have to say this filesystem have been badly hit by the 2.6.16-rc1-mm1 reiserfs' bugs. I had to issue a "fsck.reiserfs --rebuild-tree" to get back about 1 Gb of files in lost+found (reiserfsck 3.6.19). Here are some logs taken with an unpatched 2.6.16-rc1-mm2 kernel : Script started on Sat Jan 21 17:54:22 2006 [ this is root user ] sh-3.00# cd /home/gnutella/ sh-3.00# df -h . Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/vglinux1-lvhome 5.0G 4.8G 291M 95% /home sh-3.00# mount [...] /dev/mapper/vglinux1-lvhome on /home type reiserfs (rw) [...] sh-3.00# ls -ld . drwx--x--x 18 gnutella gnutella 768 Jan 21 16:35 . sh-3.00# ls -l total 16 drwxr-xr-x 3 gnutella gnutella 72 Dec 24 2002 News lrwxrwxrwx 1 gnutella gnutella 21 Jan 20 00:19 azureus -> /home/laurent/azureus -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 121 Jan 21 16:35 essai -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 121 Jan 21 15:44 essai2 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 121 Jan 21 16:24 essai3 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jan 21 16:35 essai4 drwxr-xr-x 5 gnutella gnutella 120 Jan 20 00:11 klibido -rw------- 1 gnutella gnutella 377 Jan 20 00:22 nohup.out drwx------ 7 gnutella gnutella 320 Jan 21 04:08 tmp sh-3.00# touch essai5 touch: cannot touch `essai5': Permission denied sh-3.00# > eesai5 sh: eesai5: Permission denied sh-3.00# rm essai rm: remove write-protected regular file `essai'? y rm: cannot remove `essai': Permission denied sh-3.00# strace touch essai execve("/bin/touch", ["touch", "essai"], [/* 13 vars */]) = 0 uname({sys="Linux", node="antares.localdomain", ...}) = 0 brk(0) = 0x8051000 [...] open("essai", O_WRONLY|O_NONBLOCK|O_CREAT|O_NOCTTY|O_LARGEFILE, 0666) = -1 EACCES (Permission denied) utime("essai", NULL) = -1 EACCES (Permission denied) write(2, "touch: ", 7touch: ) = 7 write(2, "cannot touch `essai\'", 20cannot touch `essai') = 20 write(2, ": Permission denied", 19: Permission denied) = 19 write(2, "\n", 1 ) = 1 exit_group(1) = ? Process 1699 detached sh-3.00# ls -l total 16 drwxr-xr-x 3 gnutella gnutella 72 Dec 24 2002 News lrwxrwxrwx 1 gnutella gnutella 21 Jan 20 00:19 azureus -> /home/laurent/azureus -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 121 Jan 21 16:35 essai -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 121 Jan 21 15:44 essai2 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 121 Jan 21 16:24 essai3 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jan 21 16:35 essai4 drwxr-xr-x 5 gnutella gnutella 120 Jan 20 00:11 klibido -rw------- 1 gnutella gnutella 377 Jan 20 00:22 nohup.out drwx------ 7 gnutella gnutella 320 Jan 21 04:08 tmp sh-3.00# strace vi essai 2>/tmp/trace [...] sh-3.00# grep essai /tmp/essai execve("/bin/vi", ["vi", "essai"], [/* 13 vars */]) = 0 stat64("essai", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=121, ...}) = 0 stat64("/home/gnutella/essai", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=121, ...}) = 0 stat64("essai", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=121, ...}) = 0 stat64("essai", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=121, ...}) = 0 access("essai", W_OK) = -1 EACCES (Permission denied) open("essai", O_RDONLY|O_LARGEFILE) = 3 open("essai", O_RDONLY|O_LARGEFILE) = 3 stat64("essai", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=121, ...}) = 0 sh-3.00# Script done on Sat Jan 21 18:24:23 2006 ~~ laurent ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-01-21 18:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-01-17 18:15 reiserfs tails and disk space Bruce Guenter 2006-01-17 18:58 ` Hans Reiser 2006-01-18 18:34 ` Vitaly Fertman 2006-01-19 19:53 ` Bruce Guenter 2006-01-19 22:00 ` Vitaly Fertman 2006-01-21 18:08 ` Laurent Riffard
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.