[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Performance of ext4
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:42:36AM +0000, Holger Kiehl wrote:
> Note how the size of file changes from
> 9230 before the test to 8208 bytes after the test. Also note the
> date both have the same timestamp "2008-06-17 04:35". I have made a
> copy of before the test and compared it
> with that after the test. The file is just truncated by 1022 bytes
> and there is no garbage.

So the corruption is always a truncation, correct?

Did you notice the problem with ext4 w/o the patch queue? I have a
suspicion that the problem may have been introduced by the delayed
allocation code, but I don't have hard evidence. When you rerun your
benchmark (which seems to be the closest thing we have to a
reproduction case), it would be interesting to know if the problem
goes away with -o nodelalloc (again, it would localize where we need
to look).

Thanks, regards,

- Ted

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-19 18:01    [W:2.839 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site