xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions

To: Geoffrey Wehrman <gwehrman@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions
From: Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:24:17 +1000
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Geoffrey Wehrman <gwehrman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:55:31PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> | This is a respin of the patches Barry Naujok wrote at SGI for reducing
> | the memory usage in repair.  I've split it up, fixed a few small bugs
> | and added two preparatory cleanups - but all the real work is Barry's.
> | There has been lots of heavy testing on large filesystems by Barry
> | on the original patches, and quite a lot of testing on slightly 
> smaller
> | filesystems by me.  These were all ad-hoc tests as XFSQA coverage is
> | rather low on repair.  My plan is to add various additional testcase
> | for XFSQA both for intentional corruptions as well as reproducing past
> | reported bugs before we'll release these patches in xfsprogs.  But I 
> think
> | it would be good if we could get them into the development git tree to
> | get wider coverage already.
> 
> How do these changes affect xfs_repair I/O performance?  Barry changes
> were previously withheld within SGI due to a regression in performance.

They were withheld? First I've heard about that. I spent a lot of time on those
changes to minimize the performance impact, and with increasing xfs_repair's
cache size, can actually be faster now depending on the system's RAM
and filesystem size. And it's certainly faster than xfs_repair before my 
performance optimisation changes.

Barry.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>