fd05037e1a changed the allocation batch
size from 256 to 128 under the assumption that an indexEntry is 60 bytes
on amd64, but it's 64: structs are padded out to a multiple of 8 for
alignment reasons. That means we'd waste no space in malloc even without
the batch allocation, at least on 64-bit machines. While that strategy
cuts the overallocation down dramatically for many small indexes, it also
seems to slow allocation down (Go 1.18, Linux, amd64, -benchtime=2s):
name old time/op new time/op delta
DecodeIndex-8 4.67s ± 5% 4.60s ± 1% ~ (p=0.953 n=10+5)
DecodeIndexParallel-8 4.67s ± 3% 4.60s ± 1% ~ (p=0.953 n=10+5)
IndexHasUnknown-8 37.8ns ± 8% 36.5ns ±14% ~ (p=0.841 n=5+5)
IndexHasKnown-8 38.5ns ±12% 37.7ns ±10% ~ (p=0.968 n=5+5)
IndexAlloc-8 615ms ±18% 607ms ± 1% ~ (p=1.000 n=10+5)
IndexAllocParallel-8 245ms ±11% 285ms ± 6% +16.40% (p=0.001 n=10+5)
MasterIndexAlloc-8 286ms ± 9% 275ms ± 2% ~ (p=1.000 n=10+5)
LoadIndex/v1-8 27.0ms ± 4% 26.8ms ± 1% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5)
LoadIndex/v2-8 22.4ms ± 1% 22.8ms ± 2% +1.48% (p=0.016 n=5+5)
name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta
IndexAlloc-8 446MB ± 0% 446MB ± 0% -0.00% (p=0.000 n=8+4)
IndexAllocParallel-8 446MB ± 0% 446MB ± 0% -0.00% (p=0.008 n=8+5)
MasterIndexAlloc-8 213MB ± 0% 159MB ± 0% -25.47% (p=0.000 n=10+5)
name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta
IndexAlloc-8 913k ± 0% 2632k ± 0% +188.19% (p=0.008 n=5+5)
IndexAllocParallel-8 913k ± 0% 2632k ± 0% +188.21% (p=0.008 n=5+5)
MasterIndexAlloc-8 318k ± 0% 1172k ± 0% +267.86% (p=0.008 n=5+5)
Instead, this patch sets a batch size of 4, which means no space is
wasted by malloc on 64-bit and very little on 32-bit. It still gets very
close to the savings from not allocating in batches, without requiring
special code for bits.UintSize==64. Benchmark results, again for
Linux/amd64:
name old time/op new time/op delta
DecodeIndex-8 4.67s ± 5% 4.83s ± 9% ~ (p=0.315 n=10+10)
DecodeIndexParallel-8 4.67s ± 3% 4.68s ± 4% ~ (p=0.315 n=10+10)
IndexHasUnknown-8 37.8ns ± 8% 44.5ns ±19% ~ (p=0.095 n=5+5)
IndexHasKnown-8 38.5ns ±12% 36.9ns ± 8% ~ (p=0.690 n=5+5)
IndexAlloc-8 615ms ±18% 628ms ±18% ~ (p=0.218 n=10+10)
IndexAllocParallel-8 245ms ±11% 262ms ± 9% +7.02% (p=0.043 n=10+10)
MasterIndexAlloc-8 286ms ± 9% 287ms ±13% ~ (p=1.000 n=10+10)
LoadIndex/v1-8 27.0ms ± 4% 26.8ms ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=5+5)
LoadIndex/v2-8 22.4ms ± 1% 22.5ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.056 n=5+5)
name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta
IndexAlloc-8 446MB ± 0% 446MB ± 0% ~ (p=1.000 n=8+10)
IndexAllocParallel-8 446MB ± 0% 446MB ± 0% -0.00% (p=0.000 n=8+8)
MasterIndexAlloc-8 213MB ± 0% 160MB ± 0% -25.02% (p=0.000 n=10+9)
name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta
IndexAlloc-8 913k ± 0% 1333k ± 0% +45.94% (p=0.000 n=8+10)
IndexAllocParallel-8 913k ± 0% 1333k ± 0% +45.94% (p=0.000 n=8+8)
MasterIndexAlloc-8 318k ± 0% 525k ± 0% +64.99% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
The allocation method indexmap.newEntry has also been rewritten in a
form that is a few instructions shorter.
Apparently SMB/CIFS on Linux/macOS returns somewhat random errnos when
trying to sync a windows share which does not support calling fsync for
a directory.
This functionality has gone unused since
4b3dc415ef changed hashing.Reader's only
client to use ioutil.ReadAll on a bufio.Reader wrapping the hashing
Reader.
Reverts bcb852a8d0.
This removes RunWorkers, which had become mere overhead by successive
refactors. It also ensures that each former user of that function
returns any context error that occurs, so failure to complete an
operation is always reported as an error.
Apparently it can take a moment between closing a tempfile marked as
DELETE_ON_CLOSE and it actually being deleted. During that time the file
is inaccessible. Thus just skip deleting the temp file on windows.
Tree packs are cached locally at clients and thus benefit a lot from
being compressed. Ensure this be having prune always repack pack files
containing uncompressed trees.
The `stats` command checks inodes to not count hardlinked files multiple
times into the restore size. This check applies across all snapshots and
not only within snapshots. As a result the result size was far too low
when calculating it for multiple snapshots and it would vary depending
on the order in which snapshots were listed.
Alexander Neumann