From: Juan Piernas Canovas <piernas@ditec.um.es>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Cc: zlatko.calusic@iskon.hr, sct@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext3 writeback mode slower than ordered mode?
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 13:58:50 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112091353020.6975-100000@ditec.um.es> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3C12C57C.FF93FAC0@zip.com.au>
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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
>
> ext3 is significantly more costly in either journalling mode,
> probably because of the bitmap manipulation - each time we allocate
> a block to the file, we have to muck around doing all sorts
> of checks and list manipulations against the buffer which holds
> the bitmap. Not only is this costly, but ext2 speculatively
> sets a bunch of bits at the same time, which ext3 cannot do
> for consistency reasons.
>
> There are a few things we can do to pull this back, but given that
> this is all pretty insignificant once you actually start doing disk
> IO, we couldn't justify the risk of destabilising the filesystem
> for small gains.
Hi!
Sorry, but I can confirm that Ext3 is slower with "-o
data=writeback" option than with "-o data=ordered" option when you create
and delete a lot of files. I use 2.2.19 Linux kernel along with 0.0.7a
Ext3 version.
Bye!
Juan.
--
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 13:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-12-08 21:10 Zlatko Calusic
2001-12-09 1:59 ` Andrew Morton
2001-12-09 12:58 ` Juan Piernas Canovas [this message]
2001-12-09 19:46 ` Zlatko Calusic
2001-12-10 18:18 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
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=Pine.LNX.4.21.0112091353020.6975-100000@ditec.um.es \
--to=piernas@ditec.um.es \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=sct@redhat.com \
--cc=zlatko.calusic@iskon.hr \
/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