ext3/reiserfs: ext3fine, reiser got OOPS!
Hello guys!
I 've been using ext3 and reiserfs for somedays with 2.4.7. Using mkreiserfs I recieved some null pointer problems and recieved a kernel oops.
While ext3 is mounted as fast as ext2, reiserfs seems is slower.
ext3, 10 GB: ~ 0.5 seconds
reisferfs 10 GB: ~ 3-5 seconds
Generating the journal with tune2fs was again much faster than mkreiserfs. But I think this is because reiser creates a new fs, wherefore mkfs.ext2 did that before.
While running there occured some problems
with reiserfs.
I am wondering that reiserfs first got into the kernel before ext3!
Nico
On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 04:24:14AM +0200, Nico Schottelius wrote:
I 've been using ext3 and reiserfs for somedays with 2.4.7. Using mkreiserfs I recieved some null pointer problems and recieved a kernel oops.
Odd --- nobody else has reported this. Can you plese supply more details (ksymoops) such that these bugs may be fixed.
While ext3 is mounted as fast as ext2, reiserfs seems is slower.
Slower to mount? Or slower to use?
ext3, 10 GB: ~ 0.5 seconds reisferfs 10 GB: ~ 3-5 seconds
Probably journal replay, still, you might have slow disks. A journal reply for me of 60+ events takes about 1 second on a single spindle (SCSI, U160).
Generating the journal with tune2fs was again much faster than mkreiserfs. But I think this is because reiser creates a new fs, wherefore mkfs.ext2 did that before.
Yes.
Do it really matter (within reason) which fs mounts and is made faster? It's not something you do every other minute.
While running there occured some problems with reiserfs.
Such as?
I am wondering that reiserfs first got into the kernel before ext3!
It was ready first (mostly).
--cw
Quoted 8 lines
I 've been using ext3 and reiserfs for somedays with 2.4.7. Using mkreiserfs I recieved some null pointer problems and recieved a kernel oops.
Odd --- nobody else has reported this. Can you plese supply more details (ksymoops) such that these bugs may be fixed.
Retrying it...
Seems like it is _not_ reproduceable currently! The mkreiserfs ran through it without any problems! If I can reproduce it again, I will send all informations.
Quoted 3 lines
While ext3 is mounted as fast as ext2, reiserfs seems is slower.
Slower to mount? Or slower to use?
Mount and delete.
reiserfs
I created 200000 empty files, and then deleted them.
ext2: creating took a very long time, I aborted (was about 7 minutes)
reiserfs: creating was done in about 3 minutes
ext2: deleting started with find | xargs rm, no problem.
reiserfs: started deleting, recieved NULL pointer
(kernel oops)
Quoted 3 lines
ext3, 10 GB: ~ 0.5 seconds reisferfs 10 GB: ~ 3-5 secondsProbably journal replay, still, you might have slow disks.
It's been the same disk.
and i don't think it was a reply, because I created the filesystem some seconds before.
Quoted 3 lines
A journal
reply for me of 60+ events takes about 1 second on a single spindle (SCSI, U160).
Hmm.... I used udma33 :(
Quoted 2 lines
Do it really matter (within reason) which fs mounts and is made faster? It's not something you do every other minute.
You are right. I was only surprised that the so called fast reiserfs takes soo long at mounting.
Quoted 3 lines
While running there occured some problems with reiserfs.
Such as?
It was impossible to delete the files on the one partition. (see above) The problem is, after I reformated the partition it was not reproduceable.
It seems there are some strange things in reiserfs, which happen at special situations.
Nico
On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 03:16:40PM +0200, Nico Schottelius wrote:
Mount and delete.
reiserfs
I created 200000 empty files, and then deleted them.
In many cases (ie. lots of files in a small number of directories), reiserfs is _much_ faster then ext2 and ext3.
This is fairly well established.
For example, on a rather humble machine (dual PIII 866) the time to extract a while bunch of files, including compression time and delete them (whilst the machine was doing other things):
cw:tty2@tapu(cw)$ /usr/bin/time tx archive/freedb/freedb-complete-20010617.tar.bz2 128.87user 152.89system 5:33.36elapsed 84%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (2141major+2086minor)pagefaults 0swaps
cw:tty2@tapu(cw)$ du -s freedb-complete-20010617/ 1380821 freedb-complete-20010617
cw:tty2@tapu(cw)$ find freedb-complete-20010617/ -type f -print|wc -l 350065
cw:tty2@tapu(cw)$ ls -F freedb-complete-20010617/ COPYING blues/ country/ folk/ misc/ reggae/ soundtrack/ README classical/ data/ jazz/ newage/ rock/
<stress memory and cause swapping to purge much of page cache>
cw:tty2@tapu(cw)$ /usr/bin/time rm -rf freedb-complete-20010617/ 0.68user 66.48system 3:22.71elapsed 33%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (111major+17minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Hot-cache, the delete time is about 15seconds from memory (I posted results to the reiserfs list a few weeks back).
--cw