On 2011-04-07 17.19, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> softdep does not change the layout. But only filesystems which were
> mounted with softdep get this optimization. There's a flag in teh
> superblock to signal that. Filesystem mounted with softdep have better
> guarantees about the cylinder group headers being consistent.
Ah, right. But then I don't really understand why I didn't get more
oomph out of the patch. There's obviously some difference, since I could
see the memory usage drop significantly.
Or wait, I suddenly realized that what you wrote in an earlier mail, here:
> Also, depending on the usage patterns, you might have a fs where high
> numbered inodes are used, while the fs itself is pretty empty. Filling
> up a fs with lots of files and them removing a lot of them is an
> example that could lead to such a situation. This diff does not speed
> things up in such cases.
...might have an impact in my case, since I often do things like rebuilding
the system including tons of packages on this machine, and that use case of
course perfectly matches what you say above. I think I'll remake these file
systems and run the test again just to satisfy my curiosity. But that'll
have to wait until after dinner. :-)
Anyway, I see improvements both in memory usage and in speed, and I see no
obvoius malfunctions, so I'd say it's a go.
Regards,
/Benny
>> And yes, they were all ffs1 filesystems. I have a 13 TB ffs2 file system on
>> that machine as well, didn't try that now because I wanted to fire off a
>> quick reply to your request for testing, and also you mentioned that ffs2
>> is less (if at all) affected by this patch. I'll be glad to run a test
>> against
>> that volume as well, if you think there's an interest. Expect about 50
>> minutes
>> a run for one pass with the old and one pass with the new code though. :-)
>>
>>>> Unpatched, run with time /sbin/fsck_ffs -pf /dev/rraid0[adefghi]:
>>> [snip]
>>>> 1m20.35s real 0m2.57s user 0m4.29s system
>>>>
>>>> Patched, run with time /root/fsck_ffs -pf /dev/rraid0[adefghi]:
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>> 1m18.52s real 0m1.32s user 0m3.85s system
>>>>
>>>> The file systems are organized like this:
>>>>
>>>> skynet:~/fsck_ffs_patch# dumpfs -m /dev/rraid0a
>>>> # newfs command for /dev/rraid0a
>>>> newfs -O 1 -b 16384 -e 4096 -f 2048 -g 16384 -h 64 -m 5 -o time -s
>>>> 525856 /dev/rraid0a
>>>> skynet:~/fsck_ffs_patch# dumpfs -m /dev/rraid0d
>>>> # newfs command for /dev/rraid0d
>>>> newfs -O 1 -b 16384 -e 4096 -f 2048 -g 16384 -h 64 -m 5 -o time -s
>>>> 4197120 /dev/rraid0d
>>>> skynet:~/fsck_ffs_patch# dumpfs -m /dev/rraid0e
>>>> # newfs command for /dev/rraid0e
>>>> newfs -O 1 -b 16384 -e 4096 -f 2048 -g 16384 -h 64 -m 5 -o time -s
>>>> 8390400 /dev/rraid0e
>>>> skynet:~/fsck_ffs_patch# dumpfs -m /dev/rraid0f
>>>> # newfs command for /dev/rraid0f
>>>> newfs -O 1 -b 16384 -e 4096 -f 2048 -g 16384 -h 64 -m 5 -o time -s
>>>> 16780800 /dev/rraid0f
>>>> skynet:~/fsck_ffs_patch# dumpfs -m /dev/rraid0g
>>>> # newfs command for /dev/rraid0g
>>>> newfs -O 1 -b 16384 -e 4096 -f 2048 -g 16384 -h 64 -m 5 -o time -s
>>>> 41944320 /dev/rraid0g
>>>> skynet:~/fsck_ffs_patch# dumpfs -m /dev/rraid0h
>>>> # newfs command for /dev/rraid0h
>>>> newfs -O 1 -b 16384 -e 4096 -f 2048 -g 16384 -h 64 -m 5 -o time -s
>>>> 12583680 /dev/rraid0h
>>>> skynet:~/fsck_ffs_patch# dumpfs -m /dev/rraid0i
>>>> # newfs command for /dev/rraid0i
>>>> newfs -O 1 -b 16384 -e 4096 -f 2048 -g 16384 -h 64 -m 5 -o time -s
>>>> 7857920 /dev/rraid0i
>>>> skynet:~/fsck_ffs_patch#
>>>> Btw, I noticed a small change in this diff compared to the one you posted
>>>> in the previous discussion thread. I assume this is the correct one to use?
>>>
>>> Yes, though that's the most recent version.
>>>
>>> -Otto
>>>>
>>>> skynet:~# diff fsck_ffs.patch fsck_ffs_2.patch
>>>> 158c158
>>>> < +++ inode.c 31 Mar 2011 16:34:27 -0000
>>>> ---
>>>>> +++ inode.c 4 Apr 2011 09:16:36 -0000
>>>> 203c203
>>>> < + info[i].ino_state = USTATE;
>>>> ---
>>>>> + SET_ISTATE(i, USTATE);
--
internetlabbet.se / work: +46 8 551 124 80 / "Words must
Benny Lvfgren / mobile: +46 70 718 11 90 / be weighed,
/ fax: +46 8 551 124 89 / not counted."
/ email: benny -at- internetlabbet.se
