|
»
Slower performance with ext4
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 | Next > |
 |
Slower performance with ext4
by Raphael-47
::
Rate this Message:
Help, after I had clean installed Karmic on my ext4 partition, the performance was significantly slower compared to ext3. Startup was around 7 secs but with ext4 it's now 20 secs application speeds are also slower. Regards, Raphael New Email names for you! Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. Hurry before someone else does! -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Christopher Chan-9
::
Rate this Message:
Raphael wrote:
> > > Help, after I had clean installed Karmic on my ext4 partition, the > performance was significantly slower compared to ext3. Startup was > around 7 secs but with ext4 it's now 20 secs application speeds are > also slower. jfs! jfs! jfs! -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Christopher Chan-9
::
Rate this Message:
Raphael wrote:
> But isn't the default filesystem for ubuntu ext4, and isn't it the default for a reason? > /me rotfl. On RHEL/Centos, ext3 is the only filesystem available. Not sure if they will offer ext3 + ext4 with RHEL6. Why? ext4 is an unproven filesystem. Data loss anyone? Not like ext3 and jfs. XFS codebase is so blooming big, I am not sure that it will ever reach the state that ext3 and jfs currently are. > Sent from my iPod > > On 30-Oct-2009, at 2:42 PM, Christopher Chan <christopher.chan@...> wrote: > > Raphael wrote: > > > Help, after I had clean installed Karmic on my ext4 partition, the > performance was significantly slower compared to ext3. Startup was > around 7 secs but with ext4 it's now 20 secs application speeds are > also slower. > jfs! jfs! jfs! > > -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by John Scott-8
::
Rate this Message:
>Data loss anyone?<What evidence do you have that there would be data loss? ext2 and ext3 were used almost immediately after their release as well. The distro maintainers usually do some basic reliability tests or at least have access to such tests. So I would be happy to read any tests you've seen that suggest ext4 is unreliable. To start scaring people with talk of data loss based on random speculation would not be good. Regards, John From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher <christopher.chan@...> To: ubuntu-users@... Sent: Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:30 am Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4 Raphael wrote: -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Steve Flynn
::
Rate this Message:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM, <fyrbrds@...> wrote:
> >Data loss anyone?< > > What evidence do you have that there would be data loss? ext2 and ext3 were > used almost immediately after their release as well. The distro maintainers > usually do some basic reliability tests or at least have access to such > tests. So I would be happy to read any tests you've seen that suggest ext4 > is unreliable. To start scaring people with talk of data loss based on > random speculation would not be good. It's not random specualtion: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ext4+dataloss+reports&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a -- Steve When one person suffers from a delusion it is insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Avi Greenbury
::
Rate this Message:
fyrbrds@... wrote:
> >Data loss anyone?< > What evidence do you have that there would be data loss? It's a brand-spanking-new filesystem. Fear of data loss is natural and understandable. -- Avi Greenbury http://aviswebsite.co.uk ;) http://aviswebsite.co.uk/asking-questions -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Karl F. Larsen
::
Rate this Message:
Raphael wrote:
> > Help, after I had clean installed Karmic on my ext4 partition, the performance was significantly slower compared to ext3. Startup was around 7 secs but with ext4 it's now 20 secs application speeds are also slower. If you can document this in a bug report it will help the designers of ext4 to work on their project to speed it up. I have been working on my wife's Windows XP and it is sure lazy coming on. They have an early Microsoft add, and then XP starts to unfold... Karl > > Regards, > Raphael > > > New Email names for you! > Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. > Hurry before someone else does! > http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/sg/ > -- Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI Linux User #450462 http://counter.li.org. Key ID = 3951B48D -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Karl F. Larsen
::
Rate this Message:
Raphael wrote:
> But isn't the default filesystem for ubuntu ext4, and isn't it the default for a reason? > > Sent from my iPod > > On 30-Oct-2009, at 2:42 PM, Christopher Chan <christopher.chan@...> wrote: > > Raphael wrote: > > > Help, after I had clean installed Karmic on my ext4 partition, the > performance was significantly slower compared to ext3. Startup was > around 7 secs but with ext4 it's now 20 secs application speeds are > also slower. > jfs! jfs! jfs! > Grub 2 will run on either file system. This tells me I made a bad choice going with ext4, but I thought it was fixed by now. Karl -- Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI Linux User #450462 http://counter.li.org. Key ID = 3951B48D -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Christopher Chan-9
::
Rate this Message:
fyrbrds@... wrote:
> > >Data loss anyone?< > What evidence do you have that there would be data loss? ext2 and ext3 were used almost immediately after their release as well. The distro maintainers usually do some basic reliability tests or at least have access to such tests. So I would be happy to read any tests you've seen that suggest ext4 is unreliable. To start scaring people with talk of data loss based on random speculation would not be good. > > Dude, I used to work with clusters of mta boxes. The last thing I needed then was a filesystem that loses data or corrupts its metadata easily. I wait before using any new fangled filesystem regardless of how uber fast it is or I play the pull the plug game with them with whatever journaling mode they have available. ext4 data loss reports started with Ubuntu Jaunty I think too? -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Leonard Chatagnier-2
::
Rate this Message:
--- On Fri, 10/30/09, Steve Flynn <anothermindbomb@...> wrote: > From: Steve Flynn <anothermindbomb@...> > Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4 > To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@...> > Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 6:38 AM > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:58 > AM, <fyrbrds@...> > wrote: > > >Data loss anyone?< > > > > What evidence do you have that there would be data > loss? ext2 and ext3 were > > used almost immediately after their release as well. > The distro maintainers > > usually do some basic reliability tests or at least > have access to such > > tests. So I would be happy to read any tests you've > seen that suggest ext4 > > is unreliable. To start scaring people with talk of > data loss based on > > random speculation would not be good. > > It's not random specualtion: > > http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ext4+dataloss+reports&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a > > Leonard Chatagnier lenc5570@... -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Leonard Chatagnier-2
::
Rate this Message:
--- On Fri, 10/30/09, Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1@...> wrote: > From: Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1@...> > Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4 > To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@...> > Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 7:05 AM > Raphael wrote: > > > > Help, after I had clean installed Karmic on my ext4 > partition, > > the performance was significantly slower compared to ext3. > > Startup was around 7 secs but with ext4 it's now 20 > secs > application > > speeds are also slower. > > > If you can document this in a bug report > it will help the > designers of ext4 to work on their project to speed it up. > > I have been working on my wife's Windows XP and it is sure > > lazy coming on. They have an early Microsoft add, and then > XP > starts to unfold... > > Karl > > Leonard Chatagnier lenc5570@... -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Karl F. Larsen
::
Rate this Message:
Leonard Chatagnier wrote:
> --- On Fri, 10/30/09, Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1@...> wrote: > >> From: Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1@...> >> Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4 >> To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@...> >> Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 7:05 AM >> Raphael wrote: >>> Help, after I had clean installed Karmic on my ext4 >> partition, >> >> the performance was significantly slower compared to ext3. >> >> Startup was around 7 secs but with ext4 it's now 20 >> secs >> application >> >> speeds are also slower. >> >> >> If you can document this in a bug report >> it will help the >> designers of ext4 to work on their project to speed it up. >> >> I have been working on my wife's Windows XP and it is sure >> >> lazy coming on. They have an early Microsoft add, and then >> XP >> starts to unfold... >> >> Karl >> >> > Karl, try reading the link the OP gave. A bug report has already been filed. Actually it was on data loss as far as I read. > Leonard Chatagnier > lenc5570@... > > it to lost data. In his message he said ext3 was much faster than ext4. Karl -- Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI Linux User #450462 http://counter.li.org. Key ID = 3951B48D -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Steve Flynn
::
Rate this Message:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Leonard Chatagnier
<lenc5570@...> wrote: > >> It's not random specualtion: >> >> http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ext4+dataloss+reports&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a >> > Reading the first couple of items shown in your above link it does appear to have been fixed in both Jaunty and Karmic. Your comment may not be random speculation but it does appear to be outdated. I'm using Karmic Beta 64 bit and have not experienced any data loss, thanks for that. Actually I forgot to post the link I was really after. The release notes for 9.10 highlight posible filesystem corruption with large files (> 512 Mb)... https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/453579 -- Steve When one person suffers from a delusion it is insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Leonard Chatagnier-2
::
Rate this Message:
--- On Fri, 10/30/09, Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1@...> wrote: > From: Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1@...> > Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4 > To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@...> > Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 7:38 AM > Leonard Chatagnier wrote: > > --- On Fri, 10/30/09, Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1@...> > wrote: > > > >> From: Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1@...> > >> Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4 > >> To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for > general discussions" <ubuntu-users@...> > >> Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 7:05 AM > >> Raphael wrote: > >>> Help, after I had clean installed Karmic on my > ext4 > >> partition, > >> > >> the performance was significantly slower compared > to ext3. > >> > >> Startup was around 7 secs but > with ext4 it's now 20 > >> secs > >> application > >> > >> speeds are also slower. > >> > >> > >> If you can document this > in a bug report > >> it will help the > >> designers of ext4 to work on their project to > speed it up. > >> > >> I have been working on my wife's Windows XP and it > is sure > >> > >> lazy coming on. They have an early Microsoft add, > and then > >> XP > >> starts to unfold... > >> > >> Karl > >> > >> > > Karl, try reading the link the OP gave. A bug > report has already been filed. Actually it was on data > loss as far as I read. > > Leonard Chatagnier > > lenc5570@... > > > > > I did goto his bug report and the > responders seemed to change > it to lost data. In his message he said ext3 was much > faster > than ext4. > > Leonard Chatagnier lenc5570@... -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Leonard Chatagnier-2
::
Rate this Message:
--- On Fri, 10/30/09, Steve Flynn <anothermindbomb@...> wrote: > From: Steve Flynn <anothermindbomb@...> > Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4 > To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@...> > Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 8:08 AM > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:21 PM, > Leonard Chatagnier > <lenc5570@...> > wrote: > > > >> It's not random specualtion: > >> > >> http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ext4+dataloss+reports&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a > >> > > Reading the first couple of items shown in your above > link it does appear to have been fixed in both Jaunty and > Karmic. Your comment may not be random speculation but it > does appear to be outdated. I'm using Karmic Beta 64 bit > and have not experienced any data loss, thanks for that. > > Actually I forgot to post the link I was really after. The > release > notes for 9.10 highlight posible filesystem corruption with > large > files (> 512 Mb)... > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/453579 > > As I mentioned to Karl in his reply, I find Karmic very fast compared to older versions except for browsing speed but that is another issue entirely, I believe. Apparently, everyone's case is unique and YMMV. I do have a gut feeling that some of the issues are hardware related. Leonard Chatagnier lenc5570@... -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Christopher Chan-9
::
Rate this Message:
Leonard Chatagnier wrote:
> --- On Fri, 10/30/09, Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1@...> wrote: > > >> From: Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1@...> >> Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4 >> To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@...> >> Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 7:38 AM >> Leonard Chatagnier wrote: >> >>> --- On Fri, 10/30/09, Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1@...> >>> >> wrote: >> >>>> From: Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1@...> >>>> Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4 >>>> To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for >>>> >> general discussions" <ubuntu-users@...> >> >>>> Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 7:05 AM >>>> Raphael wrote: >>>> >>>>> Help, after I had clean installed Karmic on my >>>>> >> ext4 >> >>>> partition, >>>> >>>> the performance was significantly slower compared >>>> >> to ext3. >> >>>> Startup was around 7 secs but >>>> >> with ext4 it's now 20 >> >>>> secs >>>> application >>>> >>>> speeds are also slower. >>>> >>>> >>>> If you can document this >>>> >> in a bug report >> >>>> it will help the >>>> designers of ext4 to work on their project to >>>> >> speed it up. >> >>>> >>>> I have been working on my wife's Windows XP and it >>>> >> is sure >> >>>> lazy coming on. They have an early Microsoft add, >>>> >> and then >> >>>> XP >>>> starts to unfold... >>>> >>>> Karl >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Karl, try reading the link the OP gave. A bug >>> >> report has already been filed. Actually it was on data >> loss as far as I read. >> >>> Leonard Chatagnier >>> lenc5570@... >>> >>> >>> >> I did goto his bug report and the >> responders seemed to change >> it to lost data. In his message he said ext3 was much >> faster >> than ext4. >> >> >> > It is a little confusing; subject vs. link. However, I find Karmic much faster than ext3 on everything except browser surfing but that's not the same issue. Saying weird things like Karmic (an OS) being faster than ext3 (a filesystem) just adds to the confusing. Just do something like this: http://www.htiweb.inf.br/benchmark/fsbench.htm For those interested, I have a tarball of fsbench (perl scripts emulated delivery to maildirs) if you wish to see filesystem performance when used for a mail store. -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by John Scott-8
::
Rate this Message:
Good references given. Google returns a lot of corruption hits but most are from Jan-March of this year. Those are related to write-caching which is always a risk in case of power failure or system hang (mentioned in most that I read). There was reference to a boot-time mount parameter as a "work around," which may have to do with disabling write-caching. This would definitely affect performance. I am still reading docs to see if that is indeed what has happened.
The document https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/453579 makes for very good reading (if you can stay awake). It includes discussion of whether or not to use ext4 as default in this release or revert to ext3. Some people wanted to stick to the traditional Debian conservatism and others (the Mavericks) sided with the bleeding edge. This was enlightening. The case was made that it was better to not take any chances and just use ext3. Then it was pointed out that of the corruption bug reports, there was no definitive link between the reports and they could not reproduce the error consistently enough to say that this component or that component/driver was defective. I found this to be the most revealing message: " The relation to that upstream bug is tenuous at best. The upstream bug:
- is reported against a newer kernel than the one we're shipping - is reported to only happen when ext4 is on top of the DM layer, whereas Scott's case was ext4 on a raw device - is reported in connection with an unclean shutdown and subsequent fsck, whereas Scott reported corruption of files without an unclean shutdown (but no mention in this bug of whether the corruption requires an intervening reboot/fsck to appear - Scott, please clarify) So that upstream bug link should be dropped; it really doesn't look like the same bug."
So this was the reason for going ahead with the ext4 deployment depending on how you interpret what is being said here. I have to say that given how Linux is used and considering these docs, sticking with ext4 was a risky move. The decision may be vindicated if no bug is found with the file system itself. Distros always have to be wary of being last to roll out a feature. Why? Two words: Competitive Disadvantage. I can't imagine that this is an easy decision for the guy who has to balance those two forces. I have to think that EULA's which absolve software companies of everything but dodging taxes play a big role in how these decisions are made, nicht wahr?
Regards, John From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher <christopher.chan@...> To: ubuntu-users@... Sent: Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:35 pm Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4 Leonard Chatagnier wrote: -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Amedee Van Gasse (ub)
::
Rate this Message:
On Fri, October 30, 2009 07:08, Raphael wrote:
> > > Help, after I had clean installed Karmic on my ext4 partition, the > performance was significantly slower compared to ext3. Startup was around > 7 secs but with ext4 it's now 20 secs application speeds are also slower. What are you comparing? * Karmic Koala clean install on ext3 with * Karmic Koala clean install on ext4 Could you please do a clean install with ext3 + install bootchart, to get an exact timing, and then do the same with a clean ext4 install? Thank you. -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
|
|
Re: Slower performance with ext4
by Amedee Van Gasse (ub)
::
Rate this Message:
On Fri, October 30, 2009 11:58, fyrbrds@... wrote:
> > > >Data loss anyone?< > What evidence do you have that there would be data loss? Ext4 uses a filesystem performance technique called allocate-on-flush, also known as delayed allocation. It consists of delaying block allocation until the data is going to be written to the disk, unlike some other file systems, which may allocate the necessary blocks before that step. This improves performance and reduces fragmentation by improving block allocation decisions based on the actual file size. Delayed allocation poses some additional risk of data loss in cases where the system crashes before all of the data has been written to the disk. The typical scenario in which this might occur is a program replacing the contents of a file without forcing a write to the disk with fsync. Problems can arise if the system crashes before the actual write occurs. In this situation, users of ext3 have come to expect that the disk will hold either the old version or the new version of the file following the crash. However, the ext4 code in the Linux kernel version 2.6.28 will often clear the contents of the file before the crash, but never write the new version, thus losing the contents of the file entirely. Altering this behavior by using fsync more often could lead to severe performance penalties on ext3 filesystems mounted with the data=ordered flag (the default on most Linux distributions). Given that both file-systems will be in use for some time, this complicates matters enormously for end-user application developers. In response, Theodore Ts'o has written some patches for ext4 that cause it to limit its delayed allocation in these common cases. For a small cost in performance, this will significantly increase the chance that either version of the file will survive the crash. The new patches are expected to become part of the mainline kernel 2.6.30. Various distributions may choose to backport them to 2.6.28 or 2.6.29, for instance Ubuntu made them part of the 2.6.28 kernel in version 9.04Jaunty Jackalope. (from Wikipedia) -- ubuntu-users mailing list ubuntu-users@... Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users |
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
