On Friday, February 02, 2001 12:26:52 PM + Alan Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is why our next patch will detect the use of gcc 2.96, and
>> complain, in the reiserfs Makefile.
>
> What makes you think its gcc 2.96 ?
>
We have had many reports of exactly this symlink problem, and
On Friday, February 02, 2001 03:36:18 PM -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I'm not sure whether this problem is related
> to 2.4 kernel.
>
I suspect it is a reiserfs problem, and that you are using lilo older than
21.6. Are you mounting /boot with -o notail?
Regardless, I'm willing to bet
Ok, how about we list the known bugs:
zeros in log files, apparently only between bytes 2048 and 4096 (not
reproduced yet).
preallocated block leak on crash (fix in testing)
hidden directory entry cleanup (still reproducing, very hard to hit).
knfsd (patches in testing).
oops in
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 08:38:54 AM -0800 David Rees
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:47:09AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> Ok, how about we list the known bugs:
>>
>> zeros in log files, apparently only between bytes 204
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 06:30:01 PM +0100 Xuan Baldauf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my case, it's a SIS5513 board.
>
> I have to note that I now have one case which is between offset 9260 and
> 11016. So probably the tails unpacking theory does not work out.
>
> After a more
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 07:41:25 PM +0100 Vedran Rodic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So could some of this bugs also be present in 3.5.x version of reiserfs?
> Will you be fixing them for that version?
>
This list of reiserfs bugs was all specific to the 3.6.x versions, and they
On Thursday, February 08, 2001 10:47:29 AM +1300 Chris Wedgwood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> these appear on your system every couple of days right? if so... are
> you able to run with the fs mount notails for a couple of days and
> see if you still experience these?
>
> my guess is you
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:05:51 PM +0100 Xuan Baldauf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mhhh. It's a busy server from which I am about 700km away. I don't like to
> restart it now. (Especially because it cannot boot from hard disk, only
> from floppy disk, due to bios problems). But I'd be
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 04:35:32 PM + Tigran Aivazian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Under 2.4.1, after a little bit of running SPEC SFS (with NFSv3) I get
> these messages on the server:
>
> vs-13042: reiserfs_read_inode2: [0 1 0x0 SD] not found
> vs-13048: reiserfs_iget:
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:31:43 PM -0500 Jeff McWilliams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm having difficulty mounting a reiserfs partition after a power outage.
>
> This is 2.4.0-test9 compiled with reiserfs as a module, and
Which reiserfs version is this? Upgrading to the
On Thursday, February 08, 2001 04:00:26 PM +0100 Andrius Adomaitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have dual PIII 800 machine running as mail server on DAC 960 RAID &
> reiserfs comming with 2.4.1kernel.
>
> Under very high loads I get following messages in my kernel log:
>
On Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:00:11 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Feb 2001 02:02:00 +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> >
>> > I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems
On Monday, February 12, 2001 11:42:38 PM +0300 Hans Reiser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> Do you know if the people reporting the corruption with reiserfs on
>> 2.4 were using IDE drives with PIO mode and IDE multicount turned on?
>>
>> If so, it may be caused by the problem
On Tuesday, February 13, 2001 01:39:02 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris, your quoting is very confusing above. but I get your very
> interesting remark (thanks for noticing) that the nulls are specific to
> crashes on 2.2, and therefor could be due to the elevator bug
Hello everyone,
I think Alexander Zarochentcev and I have finally figured out
cause for null bytes in small reiserfs files. reiserfs stores
parts of these files packed together in the tree, and the
packed bytes can shift around as the tree is balanced.
When converting from the packed bytes to
On Friday, February 16, 2001 05:01:39 PM +0100 Xuan Baldauf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I think Alexander Zarochentcev and I have finally figured out
>> cause for null bytes in small reiserfs
On Saturday, February 17, 2001 05:21:18 PM +0100 Frank de Lange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi'all,
>
> Well, subject says it all... When I try to compile mozilla (CVS version)
> with the '--enable-elf-dynstr-gc' option, the compile fails with a
> segfault:
>
> ../../dist/bin/elf-dynstr-gc
On Sunday, February 18, 2001 02:10:50 AM +0100 Frank de Lange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At least the patch didn't make it worse. Would anyone care to comment on
>> how the elf-dynstr-gc option changes the file access patterns for the
>> compile?
>
> It does not change the file access
On Sunday, February 18, 2001 03:07:27 AM +0100 Frank de Lange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And no, I'm not running RedHat 7.x for those who might think so (and
> automatically blame everything on it).
>
Minor nit, but I'd rather clear it up now. Which distribution you run
doesn't matter for
On Monday, February 19, 2001 01:55:57 AM + Alan Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> it had been cleared up. In particular, the Configure.help in 2.4.2-pre4
>> says "reiserfs can be used for anything that ext2 can be used for".
>
> The configure.help is wrong on that and one other thing.
On Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:40:24 AM +1100 Neil Brown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When reiserfs came along, it abused this, and re-interpreted the
> opaque datum to contain information for recalling (locating) an
> inode - if read_inode2 was defined. I think this is wrong.
>
I
On Tuesday, February 20, 2001 03:33:33 AM -0800 David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Kevin Turner wrote:
>
>> Version:
>> Linux version 2.4.1-pre12 (gcc version 2.95.3 20010125 (prerelease))
>>
>> Possible suspect players:
>> dpkg seems to trigger the bug
>> ReiserFS is the partition that
On Wednesday, February 21, 2001 09:54:19 AM +1100 Brian May
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "dek" == dek ml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> dek> OK so I think what I can take from this is: for kernel 2.4 in
> dek> the foreseeable future, reiserfs over NFS won't work without
>
On Wednesday, February 21, 2001 01:44:10 AM +0100 Arnaud Installe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've had a problem with a reiserfs partition on a 2.2.17 kernel the other
> day. Everything I did on it just waited forever. (Since shutdown tries
> to umount all partitions the only
On Wednesday, February 21, 2001 07:30:47 PM -0800 Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>
>
> I'd love to hear the results from R5, as that seems to be the reiserfs
> favourite, and I'm trying it out in 2.4.2 because it was so easy to plug
>
>
> Mar 25 06:56:50 gip2 kernel: journal_begin called without kernel lock held
> Mar 25 06:56:50 gip2 kernel: kernel BUG at journal.c:423!
>
Ok, this BUG is there to catch people trying to use the reiserfs journal
without the BKL held. Older ac series kernel had a bug where vmtruncate
would
On Thursday, March 22, 2001 01:42:15 PM -0500 Jan Harkes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I found some code that seems wrong and didn't even match it's comment.
> Patch is against 2.4.2, but should go cleanly against 2.4.3-pre6 as well.
>
Ok, this looks correct, makes reiserfs faster, and
On Monday, March 26, 2001 06:57:37 PM -0800 Christoph Lameter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>> On Monday, March 26, 2001 03:21:29 PM -0800 Christoph Lameter
>> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>> >> On Saturd
On Tuesday, March 27, 2001 08:21:07 AM -0800 Christoph Lameter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <-debugreiserfs, 2000->
> reiserfsprogs 3.x.0h
> 9454 is free in true bitmap
>
> ===
> LEAF NODE (9454)
On Tuesday, March 27, 2001 09:50:17 AM -0800 Christoph Lameter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, notice how entry 2 and 3 are the same file name? That is a big part
>> of your problem, and it should never happen with the normal kernel code.
>> The two lines that show up as (BROKEN) mean
On Tuesday, March 27, 2001 11:14:57 AM -0800 Christoph Lameter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure I understand, you had the exact same errors before
>> running fsck? Same files could not be deleted?
&g
On Wednesday, March 28, 2001 04:29:52 AM +0200 Elmer Joandi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tyan 260 Dual PIII, 512M RAM,
>
> 2.4.2-ac26,
> mkreiserfs /dev/hda11
> mount /dev/hda11 /mnt/space
> cp -dpR /usr/* /mnt/space/
>
> immediately:
>
> Mar 28 04:23:17 server kernel: Unable to handle
On Thursday, April 05, 2001 02:13:55 AM +0100 Alan Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is a reiserfs security issue, but only of theoretical nature (Even
>> i= f
>> triggered, it won't harm you). But the reason for this bug is in NFS
>> (v2,=
>
> If the blocks contained my old /etc/shadow
On Friday, April 06, 2001 05:44:42 PM +0200 Norbert Preining
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I get frequent `internal compiler error', killed with Sig 4 or Sig 11
> and sometimes Ooops from compiling X or kernel.
>
> System: 2.4.3-vanilla, reiserfs, glibc-2.1.3
> [~] gcc -v
> Reading
On Sunday, April 08, 2001 03:43:19 PM -0500 xOr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [1.] kernel oops in reiserfs under 2.4.2-ac28 and 2.4.3-ac3 when rming
> files
Ok, reiserfs must be picking the wrong member in an array of function
pointers, probably on a bad item from disk. We're testing some
On Wednesday, April 18, 2001 01:44:04 PM +0200 Jaquemet Loic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jaquemet Loic a écrit :
> >> Sorry if this problem has already been disscussed.
>> >> I run an linux box with a HD 30Go/reiserfs .
>> I tried several 2.4 kernel ( 2.4.2 , 2.4.3 , 2.4.4-pre3 , 2.4.3-ac7)
On Monday 11 April 2005 03:38, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So anything that got modified in just one tree obviously merges to
> > that version. Any file that got modified in two trees will end up just
> > being passed to the "merge" program. See "man merge"
On Monday 11 April 2005 08:51, Chris Mason wrote:
> rej -M skips the merge program, so rej -a -M will give you something like
> this:
>
> coffee:/local/linux.p # rej -a -M drivers/ide/ide.c.rej
> drivers/ide/ide.c: 1 matched, 0 conflicts remain
>
> But I would wa
On Friday 01 July 2005 03:56, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed major throughput regressions for random
> reads/writes with aio-stress in 2.6.12 ?
> Or have there been any other FS/IO regressions lately ?
>
> On one test system I see a degradation from around 17+ MB/s to 11MB/s
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 20:27, Rob Mueller wrote:
> > > We're also applying the attached patch. There's a bug in reiserfs that
> > > gets tickled by our huge MMAP usage (it's amazing what really busy
> > > Cyrus daemons can do to a server, ouch). It's fixed in generic_write,
> > > so we take the
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 20:42, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Sounds like a different issue. The patch Bron included before fixes (or
> > at least reduces to the point where it fixes it for us) a problem where
> > processes get stuck in D state and are unkillable. A reboot is required
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 20:50, Rob Mueller wrote:
>
> Are you saying that if you mount with noatime *and* use your new patch it
> will fix the problem?
>
> What about the 2 threads linked to. Did those end up getting anywhere?
Sorry for the confusion, you're hitting the other mmap_sem ->
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 10:06:22AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > looking at the splice(2) api it seems like it'll be difficult to implement
> > O_DIRECT pread/pwrite from userland using splice... so there'd need to be
> > some help there.
>
> You'd use vmsplice() to put the write buffers
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 10:16:53PM -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Zach Brown wrote on Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:45 PM
> > > At that time, a patch was written for raw device to demonstrate that
> > > large performance head room is achievable (at ~20% speedup for micro-
> > > benchmark and ~2%
On Friday, July 20, 2001 10:50:57 AM +0200 Trond Myklebust
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> " " == Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The current code does rely on hidden knowledge of the filesytem
> > on the server, and refuses to operate with any FS that does not
>
Hello everyone,
This patch makes reiserfs O_SYNC and fsync faster by only
committing the last transcation a file/dir was included in,
instead of forcing a commit on the current transaction.
More speedups are still possible, this patch is fairly conservative.
It is based on 2.4.7-pre6 + the
On Tuesday, January 29, 2002 01:46:43 PM +0300 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Hans Reiser wrote:
>>
>>> This fails to recover an object (e.g. dcache entry) which is used once,
>>> and then spends a year in cache on the same page
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 01:25:21AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > If so, writes to B will decrease the dirty memory threshold.
> > >
> > > Yes, but not by enough. Say A dirties a 1100 pages, limit is 1000.
> > > Some pages queued for writeback (doesn't matter how much). B writes
> > >
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 01:54:31AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > > > If so, writes to B will decrease the dirty memory threshold.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, but not by enough. Say A dirties a 1100 pages, limit is 1000.
> > > > > Some pages queued for writeback (doesn't matter how much). B
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 11:58:16PM +0300, Ananiev, Leonid I wrote:
> > while triggering EIO in invalidate_inode_pages2_range()
> ...
> > With this patch aio-stress sees -EIO.
>
> Actually if invalidate_inode_pages2_range() returns EIO it means
> that internal kernel synchronization conflict was
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 06:11:55PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> How about this?
>
> Solves the FUSE deadlock, but not the throttle_vm_writeout() one.
> I'll try to tackle that one as well.
>
> If the per-bdi dirty counter goes below 16, balance_dirty_pages()
> returns.
>
> Does the constant
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:14:15AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > In general, writepage is supposed to do work without blocking on
> > > > expensive locks that will get pdflush and dirty reclaim stuck in this
> > > > fashion. You'll probably have to take the same approach reiserfs does
> >
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:21:09PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 04:50:48PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > aio is not responsible for this particular synchronization. Those fixes
> > (if we make them) should come from other places. The patch is important
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 09:47:11AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > How about this?
> > >
> > > Solves the FUSE deadlock, but not the throttle_vm_writeout() one.
> > > I'll try to tackle that one as well.
> > >
> > > If the per-bdi dirty counter goes below 16, balance_dirty_pages()
> > >
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:01:50AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 19:21 -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 04:50:48PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > aio is not responsible for this particular synchronization. Those fixes
>
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:06:47PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > We don't try to resolve "conflicting" writes between ordinary mmap() and
> > write(), so why should we be doing it for mmap and O_DIRECT?
> >
> > mmap() is designed to violate the ordinary mutex locks for write(), so
> > if a
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:57:49PM +0300, Ananiev, Leonid I wrote:
> Zach> This addresses an oops reported by Leonid Ananiev
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Zach> as archived at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/8/337.
>
> Zach> This was tested by running O_DIRECT aio-stress concurrently with
> buffered
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 08:17:51PM +0300, Ananiev, Leonid I wrote:
> aio-stress command lines used for test
> 1) mem=1G in kernel boot param if you have more
> 2) mk2fs for test_file
> 3) dd if=/dev/zero of= bs=1M count=1200
> 4) aiostress -s 1200m -o 2 -i 1 -r 16k
>
Sorry, this aio-stress
Hello everyone,
After the last FS summit, I started working on a new filesystem that
maintains checksums of all file data and metadata. Many thanks to Zach
Brown for his ideas, and to Dave Chinner for his help on
benchmarking analysis.
The basic list of features looks like this:
*
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 03:53:03PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On 6/12/07, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hello everyone,
> >
> >After the last FS summit, I started working on a new filesystem that
> >maintains checksums of all file data and metada
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:08:30AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:14:39PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > Aside from folding snapshot history into the origin's namespace... It
> > > could be possible to have a mount.btrfs that allows subvolumes
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:46:20PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Chris> After the last FS summit, I started working on a new filesystem
> Chris> that maintains checksums of all file data
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 01:45:28AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> Neat! It's great to see somebody else waking up to the idea that
> storage media is NOT to be trusted.
>
> Judging by the design paper, it looks like your structs have some
> alignment problems.
Actual defs are all packed, but I
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 10:00:56AM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> As a user of Netapps, having quotas (if only for reporting purposes)
> >> and some way to migrate non-used files to sl
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 12:12:23PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ nod ]
> Also, I think you're wrong here when you state that making a snapshot
> (sub-volume?) RO just requires you to set the quot
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 12:14:40PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On 6/13/07, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 01:45:28AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
>
> >> The usual wishlist:
> >>
> >> * inode-to-pathnames ma
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:59:23AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On 6/13/07, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ secure deletion in btrfs ]
> >
> >Right about here is where I would insert a long story about ecryptfs, or
> >encryption solutions that happen al
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:20:26PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Hi Chris-
>
> John Stoffel wrote:
> >As a user of Netapps, having quotas (if only for reporting purposes)
> >and some way to migrate non-used files to slower/cheaper storage would
> >be great.
> >
> >Ie. being able to setup two pools,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:10:29PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> After the last FS summit, I started working on a new filesystem that
> maintains checksums of all file data and metadata. Many thanks to Zach
> Brown for his ideas, and to Dave Chinn
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:45:24AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Too bad everyone is spending time on 10 similar-but-slightly-different
> filesystems. This will likely end up with a bunch of filesystems that
> implement some easy subset of features, but will not get polished for
> users or have
Hello everyone,
I've moved the Btrfs pages here:
http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs
Which gives us a bugzilla, mailing lists, and a somewhat more orderly
file download area. There are links to my HG trees for sources as well.
The oss project area automagically creates a few different
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:53:39PM +0200, Maria Domenica Bertolucci wrote:
> Would it be possible to have a git repo as well so as to keep in sync
> with all git kernel projects? It also helps standardize things.
Sorry, the repos will stay Mercurial based for now. These are small
repos and not
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> >
> > I would also suggest one more feature: support for block level
> > de-duplication. I mean:
> >
> > 1. Ability for Btrfs to have blocks in several files to point to the
> > same block on disk
> >
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:01:42AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:38:30 +0200 Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Doing some testing on CFQ, I ran into this 100% reproducible report:
> >
> > ===
> > [
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:37:26PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 16:14:14 -0400
> Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:04:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > The good news is that if you
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:50:13PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Chris> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:37:26PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
[ seeky writes while creating kernel trees on ext3 ]
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:21:20AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > I patched jbd's log_do_checkpoint to put all the blocks it wanted to
> > write in a radix tree, then send them all down in order at the end.
>
> Side note: we already have all of that capability in the kernel:
>
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:09:19PM +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 11:19 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > The start and end points passed to block_prepare_write() delimit the region
> > of
> > the page that is going to be modified. This means that prepare_write()
> > doesn't
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:04:11PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
> >On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:09:19PM +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 11:19 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> >>
> >>>The start and end p
Hello everyone,
I've been spending some time lately on filesystem benchmarking, in part
because my pet FS project is getting more stable and closer to release.
Now seems like a good time to step back and try to find out what
workloads we think are most important and see how well Linux is doing on
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:01:06PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
> > For example, I'll pick on xfs for a minute. compilebench shows the
> > default FS you get from mkfs.xfs is pretty slow for untarring a
> > bunch of kernel trees. Dave Chinner gave
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:25:15AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 13:11:56 -0400
> Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At least on ext3, it may help to sort the blocks under io for
> > flushing...it may not. A bigger log would definitel
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:12:09PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On May 16 2007 10:42, Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> >For example, I'll pick on xfs for a minute. compilebench shows the
> >default FS you get from mkfs.xfs is pretty slow for untarring a bunch of
> >ke
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:33:42PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 15:13:39 -0400
> Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > If that's still working then the problem will _probably_ be directory
> > > writeout. Possibl
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:04:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The good news is that if you let it run long enough, the times
> > stabilize. The bad news is:
> >
> > create dir kernel-86 222MB in 15.85 seconds (14.03 MB/s)
> > create dir kernel-87 222MB in 28.67 seconds (7.76 MB/s)
> >
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:37:26PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 16:14:14 -0400
> Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:04:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > The good news is that if you
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 01:44:14AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 01:43:18PM -0700, Cabot, Mason B wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I've been testing the NAS performance of ext3/Openfiler 2.2 against
> > NTFS/WinXP and have found that NTFS significantly outperforms ext3 for
>
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 10:15:11AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
[ bad fragmentation from a funky write one byte every 128k system ]
>
> This only becomes a problem if the system has enough pages dirty to
> be triggering throttling so that the 1byte writes are converted before
> the data actually
This patch aims to demonstrate one way to replace buffer heads with a few
extent trees. Buffer heads provide a few different features:
1) Mapping of logical file offset to blocks on disk
2) Recording state (dirty, locked etc)
3) Providing a mechanism to access sub-page sized blocks.
This patch
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:59:54PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 21:54 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> > On 2007-06-21T15:42:28, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > A veto is not a technical argument. All technical arguments (except for
> > > > "path
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 09:06:40PM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> > > The incomplete mediation flows from the design, since the pathname-based
> > > mediation doesn't generalize to cover all objects unlike label- or
> &g
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 09:48:12AM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> > > The validity or otherwise of pathname access control is not being
> > > discussed here.
> > >
> > > The point is t
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 10:23:03AM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> > But, this is a completely different discussion than if AA is
> > solving problems in the wild for its intended audience, or if the code
> > is somehow flawed
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 05:47:55AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 11:07:54PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > >- Large block support. I can mount and run an 8K block size minix3 fs on
> > > my 4K page system and it didn't require anything special in the fs. We
> > > can go
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:58:48PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> >Using buffer heads instead allows the FS to send file data down inside
> >the transaction code, without taking the page lock. So, locking wrt
> >data=ordered is definitely going to be tricky.
> >
> >The best long term option may
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:41:58PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> >On Sunday June 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>+#define PG_blocks 20 /* Page has block mappings */
> >>+
> >
> >
> >I've only had a very quick look, but this line looks *very* wrong.
> >You
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 03:46:13AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Rewrite the buffer layer.
Overall, I like the basic concepts, but it is hard to track the locking
rules. Could you please write them up?
I like the way you split out the assoc_buffers from the main fsblock
code, but the list setup
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 01:07:43PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> >On Tuesday June 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>Chris Mason wrote:
> >>
> >>>The block device pagecache isn't special, and certainly isn't that much
> >>&
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:23:09PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 01:55:11PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
[ ... fsblocks vs extent range mapping ]
> iomaps can double as range locks simply because iomaps are
> expressions of ranges within the file. Seeing as you can only
>
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 12:35:09PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 06:23:45AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> >>I'd just like to take the chance also to ask about a VM/FS meetup some
> >>time around kernel summit (maybe take a big of time during
901 - 1000 of 1532 matches
Mail list logo
