On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> On 5 September 2013 22:24, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:27:57PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> * Andres Freund (andres@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>>> > I vote for adapting the patch to additionally zero out the file via
>>> > write(). In your tests that seemed to perform at least as good as the
>>> > old method... It also has the advantage that we can use it a littlebit
>>> > more as a testbed for possibly using it for heap extensions one day.
>>> > We're pretty early in the cycle, so I am not worried about this too much...
>>>
>>> I dunno, I'm pretty disappointed that this doesn't actually improve
>>> things. Just following this casually, it looks like it might be some
>>> kind of locking issue in the kernel that's causing it to be slower; or
>>> at least some code path that isn't exercise terribly much and therefore
>>> hasn't been given the love that it should.
>>>
>>> Definitely interested in what Ts'o says, but if we can't figure out why
>>> it's slower *without* writing out the zeros, I'd say we punt on this
>>> until Linux and the other OS folks improve the situation.
>>
>> FYI, the patch has been reverted.
>
> Is there an updated patch available for this? And did anyone hear from Ts'o?
After the patch was reverted, it was not re-submitted. I have tried 3
or 4 times to get more info out of Ts'o , without luck.
--
Jon
