From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030224AbVIAQTq (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:19:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030226AbVIAQTq (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:19:46 -0400 Received: from ns9.hostinglmi.net ([213.194.149.146]:32932 "EHLO ns9.hostinglmi.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030224AbVIAQTq (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:19:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:23:53 +0200 From: DervishD To: Brice Goglin Cc: Linux-kernel Subject: [SOLVED] USB Storage speed regression since 2.6.12 Message-ID: <20050901162353.GA67@DervishD> Mail-Followup-To: Brice Goglin , Linux-kernel References: <20050901113614.GA63@DervishD> <4316EAD1.70300@ens-lyon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4316EAD1.70300@ens-lyon.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Organization: DervishD X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ns9.hostinglmi.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - dervishd.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Brice, again :) * Brice Goglin dixit: > Are you mounting this storage with vfat and 'sync' option ? > IIRC, sync support for vfat was added around 2.6.12, making > write way slower since it's now really synchron. That seems to be the problem. Mounting without 'sync' the speed of transfers is almost infinite ;) but when doing a manual sync it gives the usual speed of about 800Kb/sec (a little bit less, in fact...). I've took a look at the ChangeLog for 2.6.12 and I cannot find any reference to vfat and sync options, but the patch contains a couple of references to MS_SYNCHRONIZE (or something like that), so maybe was then when the "-o sync" honouring was added. I don't feel comfortable with an vfat mounted asynchronously, but the new implementation seems to rewrite the fat on every single write (that's the reason of the slowdown, probably), and since I'm not sure about the quality of the flash memory present in the device, it is very probable that it would wear the first sectors :( So I have to mount it 'async' under 2.6.13; I didn't have to do that on older kernels because the 'sync' was not honoured by vfat, so the fat was updated asynchronously but the data were written synchronously (not cached, at least). Thanks a lot for your help :)) Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado -- Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net http://www.pleyades.net & http://www.gotesdelluna.net It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to...