From: Zlatko Calusic <zlatko.calusic@iskon.hr>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Cc: sct@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext3 writeback mode slower than ordered mode?
Date: 09 Dec 2001 20:46:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877krwch39.fsf@atlas.iskon.hr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871yi5wh93.fsf@atlas.iskon.hr> <3C12C57C.FF93FAC0@zip.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <3C12C57C.FF93FAC0@zip.com.au> (Andrew Morton's message of "Sat, 08 Dec 2001 17:59:24 -0800")
Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au> writes:
> Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > My apologies if this is an FAQ, and I'm still catching up with
> > the linux-kernel list.
> >
> > Today I decided to convert my /tmp partition to be mounted in
> > writeback mode, as I noticed that ext3 in ordered mode syncs every 5
> > seconds and that is something defenitely not needed for /tmp, IMHO.
> >
> > Then I did some tests in order to prove my theory. :)
> >
> > But, alas, writeback is slower.
> >
>
> I cannot reproduce this. Using http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/writer.c
>
> ext2: 0.03s user 1.43s system 97% cpu 1.501 total
> ext3 writeback: 0.02s user 2.33s system 96% cpu 2.431 total
> ext3 ordered: 0.02s user 2.52s system 98% cpu 2.574 total
>
Hm, at first I got exactly the same results for writeback/ordered
cases, as you did above, so my theory fell on the ground.
Later, bloody thing resurected again. Something really fishy is goin'
on here...
{atlas} [/mnt]# time ~zcalusic/try/awriter
~zcalusic/try/awriter 0.07s user 3.50s system 99% cpu 3.594 total
{atlas} [/mnt]# cd /tmp
{atlas} [/tmp]# time ~zcalusic/try/awriter
~zcalusic/try/awriter 0.00s user 6.05s system 98% cpu 6.129 total
{atlas} [/tmp]# mount | egrep '/tmp|/mnt'
/dev/hde2 on /tmp type ext3 (rw,data=writeback)
/dev/hde3 on /mnt type ext3 (rw)
So /tmp is writeback and /mnt is ordered (doublechecked!). See for
yourself how ext3 is slower in writeback mode. awriter is your
small program, of course.
Just for the record, I mke2fs-ed /dev/hde3 again and made it pure
ext2.
{atlas} [~]# mount | grep '/mnt'
/dev/hde3 on /mnt type ext2 (rw)
{atlas} [~]# cd /mnt
{atlas} [/mnt]# time ~zcalusic/try/awriter
~zcalusic/try/awriter 0.01s user 1.86s system 98% cpu 1.893 total
To sumarize:
ext2 0.01s user 1.86s system 98% cpu 1.893 total
ext3/ordered 0.07s user 3.50s system 99% cpu 3.594 total
ext3/writeback 0.00s user 6.05s system 98% cpu 6.129 total
What is strange is that not always I've been able to get different
results for writeback case (comparing to ordered), but when I get it,
it is repeatable.
This is a SMP machine, if that makes any difference.
Regards,
--
Zlatko
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Zlatko Calusic <zlatko.calusic@iskon.hr>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Cc: sct@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext3 writeback mode slower than ordered mode?
Date: 09 Dec 2001 20:46:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877krwch39.fsf@atlas.iskon.hr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3C12C57C.FF93FAC0@zip.com.au> (Andrew Morton's message of "Sat, 08 Dec 2001 17:59:24 -0800")
Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au> writes:
> Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > My apologies if this is an FAQ, and I'm still catching up with
> > the linux-kernel list.
> >
> > Today I decided to convert my /tmp partition to be mounted in
> > writeback mode, as I noticed that ext3 in ordered mode syncs every 5
> > seconds and that is something defenitely not needed for /tmp, IMHO.
> >
> > Then I did some tests in order to prove my theory. :)
> >
> > But, alas, writeback is slower.
> >
>
> I cannot reproduce this. Using http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/writer.c
>
> ext2: 0.03s user 1.43s system 97% cpu 1.501 total
> ext3 writeback: 0.02s user 2.33s system 96% cpu 2.431 total
> ext3 ordered: 0.02s user 2.52s system 98% cpu 2.574 total
>
Hm, at first I got exactly the same results for writeback/ordered
cases, as you did above, so my theory fell on the ground.
Later, bloody thing resurected again. Something really fishy is goin'
on here...
{atlas} [/mnt]# time ~zcalusic/try/awriter
~zcalusic/try/awriter 0.07s user 3.50s system 99% cpu 3.594 total
{atlas} [/mnt]# cd /tmp
{atlas} [/tmp]# time ~zcalusic/try/awriter
~zcalusic/try/awriter 0.00s user 6.05s system 98% cpu 6.129 total
{atlas} [/tmp]# mount | egrep '/tmp|/mnt'
/dev/hde2 on /tmp type ext3 (rw,data=writeback)
/dev/hde3 on /mnt type ext3 (rw)
So /tmp is writeback and /mnt is ordered (doublechecked!). See for
yourself how ext3 is slower in writeback mode. awriter is your
small program, of course.
Just for the record, I mke2fs-ed /dev/hde3 again and made it pure
ext2.
{atlas} [~]# mount | grep '/mnt'
/dev/hde3 on /mnt type ext2 (rw)
{atlas} [~]# cd /mnt
{atlas} [/mnt]# time ~zcalusic/try/awriter
~zcalusic/try/awriter 0.01s user 1.86s system 98% cpu 1.893 total
To sumarize:
ext2 0.01s user 1.86s system 98% cpu 1.893 total
ext3/ordered 0.07s user 3.50s system 99% cpu 3.594 total
ext3/writeback 0.00s user 6.05s system 98% cpu 6.129 total
What is strange is that not always I've been able to get different
results for writeback case (comparing to ordered), but when I get it,
it is repeatable.
This is a SMP machine, if that makes any difference.
Regards,
--
Zlatko
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-12-09 19:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-12-08 21:10 ext3 writeback mode slower than ordered mode? Zlatko Calusic
2001-12-08 21:10 ` Zlatko Calusic
2001-12-08 21:57 ` Jan H. Schrewe
2001-12-09 1:59 ` Andrew Morton
2001-12-09 1:59 ` Andrew Morton
2001-12-09 12:58 ` Juan Piernas Canovas
2001-12-09 12:58 ` Juan Piernas Canovas
2001-12-09 19:46 ` Zlatko Calusic [this message]
2001-12-09 19:46 ` Zlatko Calusic
2001-12-10 18:18 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2001-12-10 18:18 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2001-12-11 22:31 ` Zlatko Calusic
2001-12-11 22:31 ` Zlatko Calusic
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=877krwch39.fsf@atlas.iskon.hr \
--to=zlatko.calusic@iskon.hr \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=sct@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.