On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:48:35 -0400, David Mathog wrote:

> I don't recall choosing the block size during the initial installation.
> It's a 160GB disk with around 58GB in /dev/hda5. Notice that one
> has a "Reserved GDT blocks" line and the other doesn't.

The Reserved GDT blocks are used for resizing the filesystem.
The blocksize, when not specified (it isn't when using diskdrake),
is determined by mkfs. See man mkfs.ext2, and /etc/mke2fs.conf

I preallocated all of my partitions, before installing, so I don't know
if the install version of mkfs is acting differently then the installed
version, or not.

I just booted from a 2007.1 install dvd, and going into console shows that
/etc, and /tmp/stage2/etc do not include a mke2fs.conf file, so that may
be the cause of the difference. As the /etc/mke2fs.conf file installed as
part of e2fsprogs-1.39-4mdv2007.1, includes the resize_inode option, that
would explain the presence of "Reserved GDT blocks", when it's used to
make the filesystem. This also indicates the config file is not available
during install.

I don't have the space available to run a test right now, but will when
I have time to do a full backup, and then clean things up.

As this appears to be a problem with the setup of the install image, I'm
not sure how I would expect Mandriva to handle it. Rebuild the iso images?
It's definitely a performance issue, when dealing with large files, but I
don't see it as a critical bug. If you want to file a bug report, go ahead.
If not, once I'm able to run a test to confirm it, I'll file one, so they
at least don't make the same mistake, in the next release.

Most of my partitions are reiserfs, which doesn't use a config file, so
isn't affected by this.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

David W. Hodgins wrote:

> As this appears to be a problem with the setup of the install image,

That's pretty much what I was trying to determine. When I cloned I
booted SLAX and used the mkfs on it, letting everything default. I
wasn't sure if SLAX had set up some funky defaults for
mkfs -t ext3, or Mandriva had, or ??? In any case, the block sizes
turned out pretty differently. The Mandriva settings seem designed to
save space, but the cost is significantly slower disk speed. In these
days of cheap big disks it seems like a poor tradeoff.

> I'm
> not sure how I would expect Mandriva to handle it. Rebuild the iso images?

2007.1b?

> It's definitely a performance issue, when dealing with large files, but I
> don't see it as a critical bug. If you want to file a bug report, go ahead.
> If not, once I'm able to run a test to confirm it, I'll file one, so they
> at least don't make the same mistake, in the next release.

It would be great if you could file it.

This issue turned up while investigating the "5x slower dump" problem,
which afflicts kernel 2.16.21.1. At the moment I'm trying to figure out
at what release the kernel picked up this problem. I do know that as of
2.16.21.5 it's still in there. This mandriva vs. SLAX ext3 block issue
complicated that search since the block size changes made my two
"identical" systems not behave identically!

Thanks,

David Mathog

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:44:07 -0700, David Mathog wrote:

>> As this appears to be a problem with the setup of the install image,

> That's pretty much what I was trying to determine. When I cloned I booted
> SLAX and used the mkfs on it, letting everything default. I wasn't sure

Slax is a handy tool isn't it.

> The Mandriva settings seem designed to save space, but the cost is
> significantly slower disk speed. In these days of cheap big disks it seems
> like a poor tradeoff.

Several distros latest versions are roach motels. Get this - Suse 10.2
won't run UT2004 on my very vanilla machine but 10.1 works great (needs
to get printing going, though).

>> I'm not sure how I would expect Mandriva to handle it. Rebuild the
>> iso images?

That's what OpenSuse did with 10.1. The originals wouldn't install
whereas the remastered version would.

It shouldn't be too hard to modify the ISO image. I've done that myself,
that is mounted an ISO image and made changes to it, and burned the
modified CD instead. They don't have to worry about the cost of burning
a new series as they can just put the rebuilt ISO's on the repositories.

> This issue turned up while investigating the "5x slower dump" problem,
> which afflicts kernel 2.16.21.1. At the moment I'm trying to figure out

I hadn't heard about that. What's the deal? I'm using 2.6.21.5 now
myself. I'm getting good performance and has all the I2C stuff I need.

--
Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
Replace borg with net

Ron Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:44:07 -0700, David Mathog wrote:
>
>>> As this appears to be a problem with the setup of the install image,
>
>> That's pretty much what I was trying to determine. When I cloned I booted
>> SLAX and used the mkfs on it, letting everything default. I wasn't sure
>
> Slax is a handy tool isn't it.

Yup.

>> This issue turned up while investigating the "5x slower dump" problem,
>> which afflicts kernel 2.16.21.1. At the moment I'm trying to figure out
>
> I hadn't heard about that. What's the deal? I'm using 2.6.21.5 now
> myself. I'm getting good performance and has all the I2C stuff I need.
>

The problem is pretty specific for "dump" on ext3, which runs 5X slower
on machines with the affected kernels. I thought at first it was a
Mandriva 2007.1 problem but it turned out to be something in the
2.6.21.* line of kernels instead. Links:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...80627bc8337c20
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8636

Regards.

David Mathog

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:44:07 -0400, David Mathog wrote:

> It would be great if you could file it.

Bug confirmed, and reported as ...
http://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=31490

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:44:07 -0400, David Mathog wrote:
>
>> It would be great if you could file it.
>
> Bug confirmed, and reported as ...
> http://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=31490

Thanks

David Mathog