On 2011-04-07 15.06, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 02:34:27PM +0200, Benny Lofgren wrote:
>
>> On 2011-04-07 11.08, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I got little feedeback on this diff posed in a rather long thread, so
>>> I am posting it again.
>>>
>>> Please test this, it makes fsck_ffs much faster (especially with -p)
>>> and less memory hungry in a lot of cases.
>>
>> I've run it on a variety of file systems now and first of all, it seems
>> to work without regressions. It also looks like it has about 2/3 of its
>> previous memory footprint. However, I see very little increase in speed:
>
> Were your filesystems mounted with softdep? Also, the most gain is
> realized with ffs1 filesystems.
Apart from the / file system they had been mounted with softdep, yes.
However they were of course unmounted when I ran fsck_ffs.
Does softdep actually alter the physical file system structure on disk? I
have always been under the impression that softdep affects stuff like how
things are buffered and the order of which things are written to disk rather
than *what* is written, am I mistaken?
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. :-)
Regards,
/Benny
>> 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);
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> /Benny
>
--
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
