From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 15 19:30:33 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA169106566C; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:30:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de) Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F9B8FC18; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:30:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1SJV9c-0002Gk-6n>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:30:32 +0200 Received: from e178030137.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.30.137] helo=thor.walstatt.dyndns.org) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1SJV9c-0001zn-0J>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:30:32 +0200 Message-ID: <4F8B21D2.4080008@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:30:26 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120314 Thunderbird/10.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Kojedzinszky References: <4F8AAEF7.3090800@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigACA75699F447BB9326077DB3" X-Originating-IP: 85.178.30.137 Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Current FreeBSD Subject: Re: ufs multilabel performance (fwd) X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:30:33 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigACA75699F447BB9326077DB3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 04/15/12 15:59, schrieb Richard Kojedzinszky: > Thank you for the reply. >=20 > Unfortunately, dont know why, but on my xen virtualised environment, > fbsd amd64 domU performs much slower, not only 30 times. Without > multilabel, file creation speed is around 2500/s, but with multilabels > enabled, it is only 15/s (!). so it is more than 100 times slower. >=20 > And anyway freebsd is known to be fast as well, as functional. The powe= r > to serve. :) >=20 > But in my environment, 15/s file creation is very-very slow. The > hardware is a q6700 cpu with 4G ram, 2x1T sata disks in raid1, the host= > runs linux. I think with this hw the mentioned speed is really slow. >=20 > Regards, >=20 >=20 > Kojedzinszky Richard > Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt. >=20 > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, O. Hartmann wrote: >=20 >> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:20:23 +0200 >> From: O. Hartmann >> To: Richard Kojedzinszky >> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: ufs multilabel performance (fwd) >> >> Am 04/14/12 21:37, schrieb Richard Kojedzinszky: >>> Dear list, >>> >>> Although it is not only security-related question, I did not get any >>> answer from freebsd-performance. The original question is below. >>> >>> Can someone give some advice? >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> >>> >>> Kojedzinszky Richard >>> Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt. >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:16:57 +0100 (CET) >>> From: Richard Kojedzinszky >>> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org >>> Subject: ufs multilabel performance >>> >>> Dear List, >>> >>> I've noticed that when I enable multilabel on an fs, a file creation >>> gets around 20-30 times slower than without multilabel set. >>> >>> This one-liner can be used to test the differences: >>> $ truss -D perl -e 'open(F, ">$_.file") for 1 .. 1000' >> >> Same here, creating files seems to be 10 - 30 times slower with >> multilabels as it is without. >> >> But as several posts and discussions reflects, FreeBSD isn't supposed = to >> be fast although it is claimed that writing is the major than reading;= >> FBSD should serve functionality. >>> >>> And one can see that the open call takes much more when multilabel is= >>> set on an fs. It seems that only file creation needs that many time, >>> when a file exists it is opened much faster. >>> >>> Could someone acknowledge this, and have some suggestions how to make= it >>> faster? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> Kojedzinszky Richard >>> TvNetWork Nyrt. >>> E-mail: krichy (at) tvnetwork [dot] hu >>> PGP: 0x54B2BF0C8F59B1B7 >>> Fingerprint =3D F6D4 3FFE AF03 CACF 0DCB 46A1 54B2 BF0C 8F59 B1B7 At the moment, I'm troubled with a nasty kernel bug on all FreeBSD 10 boxes I have spare to test. I just tried to reproduce your observation and as far as I can go with my experience, I can confirm that by using your perl script. I'd like to test this again with a small C program. I can only test the issue (test is too far optimistic, it's simply a reproduction of your observation) on FreeBSD 10, the only remaining FreeBSD server at our department is running FBSD 9-STABLE/amd64 and "in production", so changing multilabel support is a bit harsh at the moment.= Sorry about crossposting, but I think this belongs more to CURRENT and PERFORMANCE than SECURITY. Regards, Oliver --------------enigACA75699F447BB9326077DB3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPiyHXAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N8LrsIANmL3ZmRs4NV+ZcwYgEMbON2 FoofUvnxCWi+U8v7WDxjkgzhB9gZZSCB6Sg96rsqRM1Koac4CeYSegrNU93Cs1q5 E8kKIrwxqamfSTe1a8zRmD2xQm6jRea3SLs7YyDhNVus24lwvsXrQO+raigkw+mF +ZXb3dFDnJtPZwJf22iiuQUsPCEwsYj4L9NUX//kW/AIvAYmeItKSGs1KEUqQ14D Gi5bhcGyFykR4/AlXCXGmw0reQuS8bBFl8gfKbQCi9ksZdZ5ZuTqU8NSZoUsZZUZ piPLowl8mLVqdNJVh6kSdLNp5L7UuUEXzMYpxmpXhV3poAdWIU/AoT2OxxZwrmM= =kwTn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigACA75699F447BB9326077DB3--