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.
|