Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:17:08 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> To: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, Richard Kojedzinszky <krichy@tvnetwork.hu>, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ufs multilabel performance (fwd) Message-ID: <4F8B2CC4.5030601@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <951B1A8C-A216-420A-BA17-316B8D9C2B0E@gmail.com> References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1204142134050.8001@krichy.tvnetwork.hu> <4F8AAEF7.3090800@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1204151555080.12537@krichy.tvnetwork.hu> <4F8B21D2.4080008@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <951B1A8C-A216-420A-BA17-316B8D9C2B0E@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig8F6C5458A718E52245A69775
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Am 04/15/12 22:00, schrieb Garrett Cooper:
> On Apr 15, 2012, at 12:30 PM, O. Hartmann wrote:
>=20
>> Am 04/15/12 15:59, schrieb Richard Kojedzinszky:
>>> Thank you for the reply.
>>>
>>> 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 multilabel=
s
>>> enabled, it is only 15/s (!). so it is more than 100 times slower.
>>>
>>> And anyway freebsd is known to be fast as well, as functional. The po=
wer
>>> to serve. :)
>>>
>>> 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 ho=
st
>>> runs linux. I think with this hw the mentioned speed is really slow.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Kojedzinszky Richard
>>> Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt.
>>>
>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:20:23 +0200
>>>> From: O. Hartmann <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
>>>> To: Richard Kojedzinszky <krichy@tvnetwork.hu>
>>>> 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 an=
y
>>>>> 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 <krichy@tvnetwork.hu>
>>>>> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
>>>>> Subject: ufs multilabel performance
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear List,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've noticed that when I enable multilabel on an fs, a file creatio=
n
>>>>> 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, ">$_.file") for 1 .. 1000'
>>>>
>>>> Same here, creating files seems to be 10 - 30 times slower with
>>>> multilabels as it is without.
>>>>
>>>> But as several posts and discussions reflects, FreeBSD isn't suppose=
d to
>>>> be fast although it is claimed that writing is the major than readin=
g;
>>>> FBSD should serve functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> And one can see that the open call takes much more when multilabel =
is
>>>>> set on an fs. It seems that only file creation needs that many time=
,
>>>>> when a file exists it is opened much faster.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could someone acknowledge this, and have some suggestions how to ma=
ke it
>>>>> faster?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kojedzinszky Richard
>>>>> TvNetWork Nyrt.
>>>>> E-mail: krichy (at) tvnetwork [dot] hu
>>>>> PGP: 0x54B2BF0C8F59B1B7
>>>>> Fingerprint =3D F6D4 3FFE AF03 CACF 0DCB 46A1 54B2 BF0C 8F59 B1B7=
>>
>> At the moment, I'm troubled with a nasty kernel bug on all FreeBSD 10
>> boxes I have spare to test.
>>
>> I just tried to reproduce your observation and as far as I can go with=
>> my experience, I can confirm that by using your perl script.
>>
>> I'd like to test this again with a small C program.
>>
>> I can only test the issue (test is too far optimistic, it's simply a
>> reproduction of your observation) on FreeBSD 10, the only remaining
>> FreeBSD server at our department is running FBSD 9-STABLE/amd64 and "i=
n
>> production", so changing multilabel support is a bit harsh at the mome=
nt.
>>
>>
>> Sorry about crossposting, but I think this belongs more to CURRENT and=
>> PERFORMANCE than SECURITY.
>=20
> My suggestion is completely take perl out of the equation because the w=
ay you're invoking it above uses stdio and a few other things that add un=
necessary overhead.
>=20
> Try the attached C program/bourne shell snippet instead.
>=20
> Cheers,
> -Garrett
>=20
> #!/bin/sh
>=20
> set -e
>=20
> tmp=3D$(mktemp -d tmp.XXXXXX)
> trap "cd /; rm -Rf $tmp" EXIT
> cd $tmp
>=20
> cat > test_open.c <<EOF
>=20
> #include <fcntl.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>=20
> int
> main(void)
> {
> char buf[20];
> int i;
>=20
> for (i =3D 0; i < 1000; i++) {
> sprintf(buf, "%d", i);
> close(open(buf, O_WRONLY|O_CREAT, 0600));
> }
> return (0);
> }
> EOF
>=20
> gcc -o test_open test_open.c
> time ./test_open_______________________________________________
This was pretty fast ;-)
--------------enig8F6C5458A718E52245A69775
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)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPiyzJAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N88K4IAM1Ta4DbIuYJHdbJ7TYYqPCF
cfM24slE0SikRQLxpNAtcm2gnVELhwxDiKbkFuM3277pmL9gpWhoLvJoLuCcNEo3
UKsr6YHzxfIPgcv61JhRzhyki0ETdjKbZorMpfhQAGfI1ssQQ824mMMTvWfMSOu2
x6wJ+d0pPZGlWRRkfhVUYZBaqdfj/OuM7pIq+COAU12UhZySt+4srryMeDJDzQNU
Dv7ile+FrXCQ8yrqy9nbeyRJJlPpDqnb7eQS/7d78hlnzL8tFXT6XaxOZGvB3NM2
Ej2pmGqvju+TvO9LI/CemsnEJByHmJNkFWiOTMpyrHhoCgIqr8NB7SzH98Vt5j8=
=j3k7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig8F6C5458A718E52245A69775--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F8B2CC4.5030601>