From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Fri May 5 14:42:37 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BACD5F2FE for ; Fri, 5 May 2017 14:42:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C80D644 for ; Fri, 5 May 2017 14:42:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v45Ega3i055487 for ; Fri, 5 May 2017 14:42:37 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 219049] ftruncate() slow on UFS+journaled softupdates Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 14:42:37 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.3-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: kib@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 14:42:37 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D219049 --- Comment #3 from Konstantin Belousov --- Could you try the same load on your machine, with e.g. swap-backed md(4), formatted into UFS with same tuning (AKA tunefs(8)) ? Is slow-down reproducable ? If not, I wonder if you can replace your disk by different model and try the same load. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=