Re: Do I have to do anything to make sure ext4lazyinit works as being advertised ?
in-line :-
On 01/02/2017, Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 12:46:48AM +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote:
<snipped>
>> Now I have few queries -
>>
>> a. Are my assumptions wrong ?
>
> About the doing the init on a future boot, yes you are wrong.
Ah...ok.
<snipped>
>
> 2.6.37 apparently.
My bad ...
<snipped>
>
> I believe it is on by default. However, the lazy init takes
> place in the background on first mount (so that means during
> the install), not some later boot. It apparently will use
> up to 16MB/s for initializing in the background according to
> https://www.thomas-krenn.com/en/wiki/Ext4_Filesystem
>
> I suspect it is already doing the best you are going to get.
hmm.... From what little I understand, it always the slowest interface
that needs to be supported.
And IIUC , in ext4lazyinit's case it is probably some of the MMC cards
due to which the 16 MB/S transmission is kept - although some of them
are at 104 MB/S as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiMediaCard#Table
Whereas USB are at -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.1
USB 2.0 - 35 MB/S
USB 3.0 - 400 MB/S
USB 3.1 - Gen 1 - 400 MB/S
USB 3.2 - Gen 2 - 1280 MB/S
For HDD -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA
SATA 1 - starts at 150 MB/S
Another query - if instead ext4lazyinit IF -
mkfs.ext4 -E lazy_itable_init=0,lazy_journal_init=0 /dev/mapper/fc-root
is applied then would it would start formatting and making inodes at a
much faster rate - i.e. slowest between the USB Drive and HDD in a
typical workstation - which probably would be a jump 3-4 times the
speed that ext4lazyinit would employ.
WDYT ?
If yes, how as a user could I apply/use the above command while using
debian-installer ?
> --
> Len Sorensen
>
--
Regards,
Shirish Agarwal शिरीष अग्रवाल
My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com
EB80 462B 08E1 A0DE A73A 2C2F 9F3D C7A4 E1C4 D2D8
Reply to: