Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EXT4 & Btrfs Regressions In Linux 2.6.36

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Goderic
    replied
    Originally posted by Smorg View Post
    Without some sandbox for all the developers of all the various systems to play together in without having to worry about breaking things, how is anybody to know how things will work when everybody gets together all at once to merge in their possibly massive and incompatible changes within the tiny allowed timeframe (only to be disallowed from making the possibly sweeping changes necessary in order to fix things properly)? This sounds like a terrible development model. And why is it called a release candidate? There is absolutely zero chance that -rc1 is bug free and will be released as-is, and thus, not a candidate for release. It's that simple.

    I need to finish school and learn C so I can help fix this shit. Totally ridiculous. The world needs more CK's. It also sounds like we need a way to make big changes which break things and then have the ability to eventually get those changes mainline only after everything gets integrated properly. Evolutionary change sometimes sucks and causes big ugly codebase.
    There used to be Linux alpha's and beta's but nearly nobody dared to test them. Calling everything a release candidate fixed this problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Smorg View Post
    The world needs more CK's.
    This part I can agree with 100%.

    Leave a comment:


  • droidhacker
    replied
    Originally posted by Smorg View Post
    Without some sandbox for all the developers of all the various systems to play together in without having to worry about breaking things, how is anybody to know how things will work when everybody gets together all at once to merge in their possibly massive and incompatible changes within the tiny allowed timeframe (only to be disallowed from making the possibly sweeping changes necessary in order to fix things properly)? This sounds like a terrible development model. And why is it called a release candidate? There is absolutely zero chance that -rc1 is bug free and will be released as-is, and thus, not a candidate for release. It's that simple.

    I need to finish school and learn C so I can help fix this shit. Totally ridiculous. The world needs more CK's. It also sounds like we need a way to make big changes which break things and then have the ability to eventually get those changes mainline only after everything gets integrated properly. Evolutionary change sometimes sucks and causes big ugly codebase.
    How old are you? High school still?
    You might want to familiarize yourself with linux-next, and linux-staging. Linux-next is like a pre-RC, i.e. BETA. Linux-staging is like a pre-pre-RC, i.e. ALPHA. You have your completely insane changes that will break all kinds of things in their current form.... they go into linux-staging, which you can pretty well assume will be so completely broken that it might eat your dog. At some point, if it cleans up reasonably well and starts to shape up into something useful, it ends up in next, which is basically what the NEXT kernel version will become.... i.e., the current RC is 2.6.36, so next has stuff that you can expect to see going into 2.6.37... i.e. 2.6.37 BETA. These are big changes, but not so big that they pose any particularly major risk -- they've already passed staging (if applicable) and most likely they will build and run.

    Now you want to make some MAJOR architectural changes that will wreak all kinds of havoc.... that goes into staging. If other stuff breaks in a major way, it may be your responsibility to fix it.

    Of course, not everything can just get dumped into staging... it still has to pass some basic tests and convince those in charge that it is worthy.... in other words, it can't just be raw insanity.

    So... if you're just interested in fixing bugs, then it will probably just go straight in as a bug fix to be incorporated in the next point release. A little more significant of a change and it goes in next. Major, but well conceived architectural change and it goes in staging. Complete insanity and it goes nowhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • d2kx
    replied
    Has the slow I/O issue with .35 btrfs been resolved yet?

    Leave a comment:


  • allquixotic
    replied
    On the factual side:

    So this happens with SSDs but not HDDs? You spend an article showing us how 2.6.36 is slower, then you tell us that you can't reproduce the results on another system. That certainly makes things more complicated, but at this point it would probably make sense for the community to run the same tests and see if we get the same results, then cross-reference that result with whether each person has an HDD or an SSD. Maybe this regression is only noticeable on SSDs for some reason (because they have such a fast access time, for instance?)

    On the insane/troll/etc side:

    <Cue comment about Oracle intentionally trying to sabotage btrfs to make people switch to Solaris>

    Leave a comment:


  • RussDill
    replied
    oi....I realize that this is just a "this is what we noticed with our benchmark suite post" so there isn't a lot of depth on what vfs, block, or scheduling changes might have had an effect, but it really brings out the Smorgs of the word who have a vastly simplified view of how things work.

    I realize you don't want to do 2 weeks of analysis and then post a full write up as you'd rather post something now, but it'd be nice to at least include a little bit of something. Maybe a few select commits or merges that had an effect on the benchmark? I know some of the VFS scalability stuff went into 2.6.36, which in the short term might hurt performance on single threaded workloads.

    Leave a comment:


  • pvtcupcakes
    replied
    Originally posted by Smorg View Post
    Without some sandbox for all the developers of all the various systems to play together in without having to worry about breaking things, how is anybody to know how things will work when everybody gets together all at once to merge in their possibly massive and incompatible changes within the tiny allowed timeframe (only to be disallowed from making the possibly sweeping changes necessary in order to fix things properly)? This sounds like a terrible development model. And why is it called a release candidate? There is absolutely zero chance that -rc1 is bug free and will be released as-is, and thus, not a candidate for release. It's that simple.

    I need to finish school and learn C so I can help fix this shit. Totally ridiculous. The world needs more CK's. It also sounds like we need a way to make big changes which break things and then have the ability to eventually get those changes mainline only after everything gets integrated properly. Evolutionary change sometimes sucks and causes big ugly codebase.
    Stuff that gets merged is a bit more tested than "Hey Linus, I rewrote the TCP stack over the weekend after having a few too many beers on Friday. Mind if this gets merged for the next release?"

    Anything getting merged into Linus's branch should have been pretty thoroughly tested before hand.

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Originally posted by Smorg View Post
    I need to finish school and learn C so I can help fix this shit. Totally ridiculous. The world needs more CK's. It also sounds like we need a way to make big changes which break things and then have the ability to eventually get those changes mainline only after everything gets integrated properly. Evolutionary change sometimes sucks and causes big ugly codebase.
    That's actually being done already. There's a world of its own happening behind Linus' git tree which these release candidates and releases are tagged from. But feel free to participate, I doubt anyone complains about extra testing for code before it ends up in Linus' tree.

    Leave a comment:


  • DisposaBoy
    replied
    Originally posted by Smorg View Post
    Without some sandbox for all the developers of all the various systems to play together in without having to worry about breaking things, how is anybody to know how things will work when everybody gets together all at once to merge in their possibly massive and incompatible changes within the tiny allowed timeframe (only to be disallowed from making the possibly sweeping changes necessary in order to fix things properly)? This sounds like a terrible development model. And why is it called a release candidate? There is absolutely zero chance that -rc1 is bug free and will be released as-is, and thus, not a candidate for release. It's that simple.

    I need to finish school and learn C so I can help fix this shit. Totally ridiculous. The world needs more CK's. It also sounds like we need a way to make big changes which break things and then have the ability to eventually get those changes mainline only after everything gets integrated properly. Evolutionary change sometimes sucks and causes big ugly codebase.
    Just in-case any other lurker is reading this thread I'd like to point out that the quoted message is pure FUD and may be a troll-post.

    Leave a comment:


  • Xheyther
    replied
    Originally posted by Smorg View Post
    [...]
    I don't know where you have see that release candidate equal bug-free release. Such aren't normalized in any way so I guess Linus can name his prerelease as he wants. Also it's no because you think that the rc1 is the first release of code that no testing was done before.

    Your whole post prove that you have nearly no understanding , if absolutely none, on how the kernel is structured and organized. You will have to learn a little bit more than C before you can "fix this shit".

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X