Re: [PATCH] 2.6.0 - Watchdog patches (BK consistency checks)

[Eric D. Mudama]

On Tue, Dec 30 at 13:13, Andy Isaacson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 08:36:15AM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> The consistency check definitely should not take 15 minutes.  It should
> be (much) less than 30 seconds.  What is the hardware you're running on?
>
> I'm running on an Athlon 2 GHz (XP 2400+) with 512MB and a 7200RPM IDE
> disk, and I can do a complete clone (with full data copy and consistency
> check) of the 2.4 tree in 1:40.  That was with cold caches; with the
> sfile copies and "checkout:get", a half-gig isn't enough to cache
> everything.  The consistency check is about 19 seconds (bk -r check -acv).

For what it is worth:

AMD Duron 950MHz, 768MB RAM
7200RPM 80GB Quantum Viper IDE drive, 26% full

phat-penguin:~/src/linux-2.5> time bk -r check -acv
100% |=================================================================| OK
42.710u 5.770s 2:04.63 38.8%    0+0k 0+0io 74078pf+0w

over 2 minutes of wall time, 42 seconds of "user" time... (if I'm reading it right), without primed disk caches.

The 2nd run, half a minute later:

phat-penguin:~/src/linux-2.5> time bk -r check -acv
100% |=================================================================| OK
41.900u 3.080s 0:45.53 98.7%    0+0k 0+0io 74078pf+0w


...would appear to show that BK's checksumming, on my system, is
constrained near 41 seconds of calculation time, and the difference
between the user and the wall-clock time is basically time spent
waiting for the disk to do all its reads.


I guess in that case, it'd be interesting to see what the user and
wall times were for the original poster who reported a 15+ minute
integrity check.

--eric



--
Eric D. Mudama
edmudama@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/