View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
JeliJami Veteran
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 1086 Location: Belgium
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Schizoid wrote: | I would think that if there was some lost data it found that it would recreate that directory as needed? |
No it doesn't. If your lucky, it will restore a complete file into the lost+found directory, but with some predefined name; FSCK00001 for example, don't remember exactly (DOS's checkdisk utility did something similar, with CHCKDSK.001, I think)
But most of the time, you will only get partial files, without any clue to the original filename, or its original path. _________________ Unanswered Post Initiative | Search | FAQ
Former username: davjel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pactoo Guru
Joined: 18 Jul 2004 Posts: 553
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
>I don't know why would anyone want to delete that directory, though...
Probably because nobody (except those few 20+ years Unix experienced die hard ubergeeks) knows how to actually recover those files, that are put in there after and by fsck. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
number_nine Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 05 May 2005 Posts: 136
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are these Ext3 tips still relevant?
I've done some testing on my computer with gentoo-sources-2.6.23-r9 and bonnie++ (v1.03 compiled from source).
At this point, I'm most concerned with iowait associated with write performance:
Code: |
Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite-
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP
ext3-defaults gentoo 8G 54120 78 62062 15 28364 5
ext3-noatime,journal_data gentoo 8G 22792 34 30598 8 19971 4
ext3-noatime,writeback_data gentoo 8G 59236 85 60514 13 27127 4
ext2-noatime gentoo 8G 63030 84 65542 6 27931 4
|
Notice how when I use journal=data (as suggested in this thread), I have the least write performance, but also decreased CPU usage.
The best performance appears to be with ext2, followed by data=writeback with ext3.
Thoughts? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
XenoTerraCide Veteran
Joined: 18 Jan 2004 Posts: 1418 Location: MI, USA
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
write is slower with data=journal than writeback. however write is faster that writeback while reading. and of course ext2 is faster it doesn't have journaling, which means less overhead. FAT is probably faster 2. but I would use it because I love my data. _________________ I don't hang out here anymore, try asking on http://unix.stackexchange.com/ if you want my help. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
XenoTerraCide Veteran
Joined: 18 Jan 2004 Posts: 1418 Location: MI, USA
|
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/tutorials/6480/1/
interesting updates to ext3 that is causing problems with grub. perhaps something should be added to our tips? also does anyone know if these updates otherwise affect our tips. (such as whether data_journal is still the king of read) _________________ I don't hang out here anymore, try asking on http://unix.stackexchange.com/ if you want my help. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
XenoTerraCide Veteran
Joined: 18 Jan 2004 Posts: 1418 Location: MI, USA
|
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
anyone know if data_journal offers the same benefits in ext4 (faster reads while writing)? or if there are any new enhancements and tweaks we can make? _________________ I don't hang out here anymore, try asking on http://unix.stackexchange.com/ if you want my help. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
arnuld Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 13 Apr 2007 Posts: 124
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
XenoTerraCide Veteran
Joined: 18 Jan 2004 Posts: 1418 Location: MI, USA
|
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yeah... but noatime isn't really ext(x) specific. That applies to everyfs and as far as I can tell there is never a reason not to use it. I've never had one. _________________ I don't hang out here anymore, try asking on http://unix.stackexchange.com/ if you want my help. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BlackB1rd Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 13 Aug 2003 Posts: 131 Location: /Europe/Netherlands/Haarlem
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is it correct to assume that ext3 with data=journal performs better than default (ordered) on a server platform with multiple databases and "normal files" accessed by many concurrent users? The articles found on the internet are all written many years ago and I'm not sure if those results are still valid. And my biggest question would be why the default has changed from journal to ordered when the latter performs better on servers? Shouldn't that be the default setting when performing a server installation? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyker Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 1746
|
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
BlackB1rd wrote: | Is it correct to assume that ext3 with data=journal performs better than default (ordered) on a server platform with multiple databases and "normal files" accessed by many concurrent users? The articles found on the internet are all written many years ago and I'm not sure if those results are still valid. And my biggest question would be why the default has changed from journal to ordered when the latter performs better on servers? Shouldn't that be the default setting when performing a server installation? |
AFAIK, the default journal mode has always been data=ordered.
data=journal is only faster when the filesystem is having to do lots of reads AND writes at the same time.
Formostly-reads, the other two are faster.
I used to use data=journal, but had to go back to data=ordered as data=journal makes ext4 throw out some warnings about disabling some of its features.
Note 'tho, that 'faster' is not some order of magnitude thing; It's the sort of 'faster' that is only really noticable in benchmarks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
XenoTerraCide Veteran
Joined: 18 Jan 2004 Posts: 1418 Location: MI, USA
|
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
delayed allocation hasn't been written for data=journal yet in ext4, this is only a temporary thing. so far as I know the rest of the ext4 advantages work. _________________ I don't hang out here anymore, try asking on http://unix.stackexchange.com/ if you want my help. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Strowi l33t
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Posts: 656 Location: Bonn
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:40 am Post subject: stride on dmraid? |
|
|
hi,
i've been looking into this thread from time to time... does anyone have a clue about stride size for dmraid raid0? I am an using an nvidia-dmraid 2hdds and 1 350GB ext3-partition. I chose 64kb as stripe-size in the controller-bios and "dmraid -s" reports a stride-size of 128, should i use 128 as stride-option for mkfs?
greetings and thx for all the tips, _________________ --
Linux & such ...
http://blog.hasnoname.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|