From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Thu Mar 4 21:02:15 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF6F55A5AD for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:02:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Ds3GG6kpQz4w4L for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:02:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id E725855A357; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:02:14 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F0B55A51A for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:02:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Ds3GG67LBz4w4K for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:02:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5A0623D4B for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:02:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 124L2ErI055427 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:02:14 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 124L2EMi055426 for bugs@FreeBSD.org; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 21:02:14 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 253968] 13.0-BETA4: UFS with journaled soft-updates is three times SLOWER than before Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 21:02:13 +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: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: marklmi26-fbsd@yahoo.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@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-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 21:02:15 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D253968 --- Comment #13 from Mark Millard --- Being unable to replicate anything similar to comment #4 and comment #11 being a large increase in Inter-Process-Communication and the rest of the rather-modern-FreeBSD examples being UFS SU (no J) that do not show significant problems, then it would appear that the UFS+SU+J (so with journaling) status of the original report may be an essentially separate issue from other fairly recent UFS I/O performance problems that seem to have been addressed. I do not plan to report other examples that try to isolate the context vs. recent history. It seems that only journaled experiments would likely be relevant to the epecific issue being reported. Sorry it took me so long to reach that conclusion. The comment #11's IPC operation counts in doing a portsnap extract should probably be a separate submittal. I'm less clear on comment #4 vs. some context local issue (say, file system fragmentation just to illustrate). But if it can be replicated by others, it too should probably have a separate submittal. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=