Re: Horrible ftruncate performance

["Dieter Nützel" <Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de>]

Am Freitag, 11. Juli 2003 16:49 schrieb Oleg Drokin:
> Hello!
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:35:27PM +0200, Dieter N?tzel wrote:
> > daul Athlon MP 1900+
> > U160
> > Argh! ---I can't kill it!
> > No CNTL-C or '"killall -9 dd" or under "top".
> > Even as root;-(
>
> Yup. It spins in kernel mode not listening to signals busy doing balancing
> for lots of zeroes, one at a time.
>
> > 2.4.21-jam1 (aa1) plus all data-logging
> > SOURCE/dri-trunk> time dd if=/dev/zero of=sparse bs=1 seek=200G count=1
> > 0.000u 362.760s 8:26.34 71.6%   0+0k 0+0io 124pf+0w
> > It was runinng with a paralell C++ (-j20) compilation.
> > Is the mentioned patch needed?
>
> Yes, patch is needed for any system that does not contain it.

2.4.21-jam1 (2.4.21aa1):

SunWave1 src/linux# patch -p1 -E -N 
<../patches/2.4.21-data-logging/ftruncate.patch
patching file fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 304.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 326.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 435.
Hunk #4 FAILED at 525.
Hunk #5 FAILED at 553.
Hunk #6 FAILED at 566.
Hunk #7 FAILED at 574.
Hunk #8 FAILED at 691.
Hunk #9 FAILED at 725.
Hunk #10 FAILED at 769.
Hunk #11 FAILED at 846.
Hunk #12 succeeded at 847 with fuzz 2 (offset -8 lines).
Hunk #13 FAILED at 857.
Hunk #14 FAILED at 984.
Hunk #15 FAILED at 1037.
Hunk #16 FAILED at 1133.
15 out of 16 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c.rej
patching file fs/reiserfs/inode.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 798.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 811.
2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/reiserfs/inode.c.rej
patching file fs/reiserfs/tail_conversion.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 30.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 59 with fuzz 1.
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file 
fs/reiserfs/tail_conversion.c.rej
patching file include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h
Hunk #1 succeeded at 1289 (offset 131 lines).

OK some "hand work"...

Maybe it _IS_ time for this _AND_ all the other data-logging patches?
2.4.22-pre5?

Thanks,
	Dieter