From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add ext3 data=guarded mode
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:28:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1240039701.6298.12.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090418060312.GA10943@amit-x200.pnq.redhat.com>
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 11:33 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Fri) Apr 17 2009 [16:13:42], Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:39:06PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > # 4GiB file, kernel 9f76208c33984ab777eace5d07a4e36e88703e02 + ext3-guarded
> > >
> > > filesystem posix-fallocate mmap chunk-4096 chunk-8192
> > > ext3-guarded 85 97 459 90
> > > ext3-writeback 86 95 140 94
> > > ext3-ordered 86 96 277 95
> > >
> > > Running the test in single user mode, I get the following results:
> > >
> > > # 4GiB file, kernel 9f76208c33984ab777eace5d07a4e36e88703e02 + ext3-guarded
> > >
> > > filesystem posix-fallocate mmap chunk-4096 chunk-8192
> > > ext3-guarded 84 86 163 91
> > > ext3-writeback 84 88 217 91
> > > ext3-ordered 84 86 226 91
> >
> >
> > The difference between guarded and writeback in chunk-4096 looking at
> > your desktop timings and your single user times is.... surprising.
>
> Surely. I re-ran the guarded test immediately after that one and got a
> time of 353s with the desktop. Another run much latergave me a 189s time,
> so it seems to vary quite a lot. Initially when I was getting high
> numbers, I thought it could be related to the IO scheduler but looks like
> it's just some background tasks trying to get cpu or io time. Of course,
> the whole system becomes sluggish once these tests start.
>
> > In particular, the fact that the guarded time is 3 times longer than
> > ext3-writeback when the desktop is running, and 20% faster in single
> > user mode. Are these results reproducible? And do you have any
> > thoughts as to what might be causing them?
>
> I initially thought there was something but I also got lower numbers
> (189s), so I can't really say what it is even though I call sync before
> starting the tests.
Probably because you're swapping heavily, and that is perturbing your
test? With my setup, 3GB ram + 2GB swap, I can't even run the 4GB test
without an mmap() failure/abort, but with 3GB size, box swaps insanely.
(If I drop file size to 2GB, I see zip difference for all three mounts
modes. 4k chunk time is ~27s for all three. Actually, all numbers
emitted are around 27s.)
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-18 7:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-15 17:22 [PATCH RFC] ext3 data=guarded v3 Chris Mason
2009-04-15 17:22 ` [PATCH 1/3] Export filemap_write_and_wait_range Chris Mason
2009-04-15 17:22 ` [PATCH 2/3] Add block_write_full_page_endio for passing endio handler Chris Mason
2009-04-15 17:22 ` [PATCH 3/3] Add ext3 data=guarded mode Chris Mason
2009-04-16 19:42 ` [PATCH] " Chris Mason
2009-04-17 11:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-04-17 18:09 ` Amit Shah
2009-04-17 20:13 ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-18 6:03 ` Amit Shah
[not found] ` <20090418060312.GA10943@amit-x200.pnq.redhat.com>
2009-04-18 7:28 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2009-04-19 6:24 ` Amit Shah
2009-04-20 9:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-04-20 9:26 ` Jan Kara
2009-04-20 12:15 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-04-20 12:56 ` Amit Shah
2009-04-20 13:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-04-20 13:44 ` Jan Kara
2009-04-20 14:18 ` Chris Mason
2009-04-20 14:42 ` Jan Kara
2009-04-20 14:58 ` Chris Mason
2009-04-20 15:50 ` Jan Kara
2009-04-15 19:10 ` [PATCH RFC] ext3 data=guarded v3 Eric Sandeen
2009-04-15 20:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-15 21:09 ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-16 8:44 ` Jan Kara
2009-04-16 18:09 ` Nick Piggin
2009-04-16 11:39 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-04-16 11:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-04-16 14:56 ` Chris Mason
2009-04-16 17:12 ` Chris Mason
2009-04-16 18:25 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-04-16 18:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-16 19:38 ` Chris Mason
2009-04-16 18:00 ` Mike Galbraith
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=1240039701.6298.12.camel@marge.simson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=amit.shah@redhat.com \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).