From: Pontus Lidman <pontus@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: RSBAC performance in Linux 2.4.10
Date: 16 Jan 2002 20:18:04 +0100
Next Article (by Subject): Re: RSBAC performance in Linux 2.4.10 Amon Ott
Previous Article (by Subject): Re: RSBAC performance in Linux 2.4.10 Amon Ott
Top of Thread: RSBAC performance in Linux 2.4.10 Pontus Lidman
Next in Thread: Re: RSBAC performance in Linux 2.4.10 Amon Ott
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
Amon Ott <ao@rsbac.org> writes: [...] > > Of interest: Did you look into your /proc/rsbac-info/xstats, what calls are > > made too often? How many attribute objects do you have > > (/proc/rsbac-info/stats)? > > Just rethinking: what updatedb does is an awful lot of readdir() system > calls, with one READ request each, going through all dir objects in the > system. This is a kind of worst case szenario, which should certainly be > optimized. I don't have the 'intercept read/write', and neither do I use the MS module. I guess this performance loss is the expected behaviour for this case then. Is there a similiar explanation to some NFS slowness I've also experienced? Unfortunately I couldn't think of a good test to compare NFS performance. Here's my /proc/rsbac-info/stats, before and after the test, in case it gives you some useful information: --- stats_1 Tue Jan 15 18:24:12 2002 +++ stats_2 Tue Jan 15 19:59:33 2002 @@ -4,27 +4,27 @@ Compiled Modules: MAC RC AUTH ACL All modules active (no switching) -Device 08:01 has 303 fd-items and 1 dirty lists +Device 08:01 has 305 fd-items and 1 dirty lists Device 00:02 has 0 fd-items and 0 dirty lists Device 08:05 has 0 fd-items and 0 dirty lists Device 08:06 has 28389 fd-items and 0 dirty lists Device 08:07 has 3757 fd-items and 0 dirty lists Device 03:01 has 0 fd-items and 0 dirty lists Device 03:05 has 0 fd-items and 0 dirty lists -Device 03:04 has 1227 fd-items and 0 dirty lists +Device 03:04 has 1220 fd-items and 0 dirty lists Device 08:17 has 1027 fd-items and 0 dirty lists Device 00:06 has 0 fd-items and 0 dirty lists Device 00:07 has 0 fd-items and 0 dirty lists Device 22:00 has 0 fd-items and 0 dirty lists Device 00:08 has 0 fd-items and 0 dirty lists -Sum of 13 Devices with 34703 fd-items +Sum of 13 Devices with 34698 fd-items 0 dev-items 23 ipc-items 4 user-items 41 process-items -Total of 34771 registered rsbac-items, 1 lists dirty +Total of 34766 registered rsbac-items, 1 lists dirty adf_request calls: -file: 22415, dir: 47910, fifo: 3348, symlink: 2710, dev: 1920, ipc: 691, scd: 3 5, user: 0, process: 1766 +file: 344403, dir: 1186637, fifo: 9630, symlink: 19112, dev: 7991, ipc: 1065, s cd: 57, user: 0, process: 2932 adf_set_attr calls: -file: 11010, dir: 663, fifo: 2989, symlink: 0, dev: 1908, ipc: 690, scd: 0, use r: 0, process: 880 +file: 17208, dir: 98355, fifo: 5578, symlink: 0, dev: 7979, ipc: 1064, scd: 0, user: 0, process: 1400 -- Pontus Lidman, pontus@lysator.liu.se, Software Engineer No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up. Scene: www.dc-s.com | MUD: tyme.envy.com 6969 | irc: irc.quakenet.eu.org - To unsubscribe from the rsbac list, send a mail to majordomo@rsbac.org with unsubscribe rsbac as single line in the body.
Next Article (by Subject): Re: RSBAC performance in Linux 2.4.10 Amon Ott
Previous Article (by Subject): Re: RSBAC performance in Linux 2.4.10 Amon Ott
Top of Thread: RSBAC performance in Linux 2.4.10 Pontus Lidman
Next in Thread: Re: RSBAC performance in Linux 2.4.10 Amon Ott
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]