Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:01:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:01:50 -0400 Received: from pc-80-195-6-65-ed.blueyonder.co.uk ([80.195.6.65]:20611 "EHLO sisko.scot.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:01:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:06:14 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" To: Aaron Lehmann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Tweedie Subject: Re: ext3 throughput woes on certain (possibly heavily fragmented) files Message-ID: <20020906170614.A7946@redhat.com> References: <20020903092419.GA5643@vitelus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020903092419.GA5643@vitelus.com>; from aaronl@vitelus.com on Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 02:24:19AM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1722 Lines: 39 Hi, On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 02:24:19AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > [aaronl@vitelus:~]$ time cat mail/debian-legal > /dev/null > cat mail/debian-legal > /dev/null 0.00s user 0.02s system 0% cpu 5.565 total > [aaronl@vitelus:~]$ ls -l mail/debian-legal > -rw------- 1 aaronl mail 7893525 Sep 3 00:42 mail/debian-legal > [aaronl@vitelus:~]$ time cat /usr/src/linux-2.4.18.tar.bz2 > /dev/null > cat /usr/src/linux-2.4.18.tar.bz2 > /dev/null 0.00s user 0.10s system 16% cpu 0.616 total > [aaronl@vitelus:~]$ ls -l /usr/src/linux-2.4.18.tar.bz2 > -rw-r--r-- 1 aaronl aaronl 24161675 Apr 14 11:53 > > Both files were AFAIK not in any cache, and they are on the same > partition. > > My current uninformed theory is that this is caused by fragmentation, > since the linux tarball was downloaded all at once but the mailbox I'm > comparing it to has 1695 messages, each of which having been appended > seperately to the file. All of my mailboxes exhibit similarly awful > performance. Yep, both ext2 and ext3 can get badly fragmented by files which are closed, reopened and appended to frequently like that. > Do any other filesystems handle this type of thing more gracefully? There are some ideas from recent FFS changes. One thing they now do is to defragment things automatically as a file grows by effectively deleting and then reallocating the last 16 blocks of the file. Fragmentation will still occur, but less so, if we do that. Cheers, Stephen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/