From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: speeding up slow btrfs filesystem Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:14:25 +0100 Message-ID: <201112171714.25563.Martin@lichtvoll.de> References: <201112161851.52011.Martin@lichtvoll.de> <201112171300.29833.Martin@lichtvoll.de> <1324125748.22624.14.camel@squire.doc.ic.ac.uk> (sfid-20111217_153900_731895_C5B16D09) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: David McBride To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1324125748.22624.14.camel@squire.doc.ic.ac.uk> List-ID: Am Samstag, 17. Dezember 2011 schrieb David McBride: > On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 13:00 +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > BTW on my ThinkPad T520 I do not perceive performance issues for > > BTRFS as /. But then thats located on an Intel SSD 320 where seeks > > should not matter much. >=20 > Okay, that would be consistent with the slow behaviour observed by > others on fsync()-heavy workloads. Presumably this produces much mor= e > seeky IO patterns than current common filesystems; I wonder if this i= s > a limitation of the current implementation or something that is an > inherent properties of the data-structures being used? All I can say is that the ThinkPad T520 doesn=C2=B4t seem the best mach= ine for=20 testing the performance of software. I have seen nothing thats actually= =20 been slow on that machine yet. Its not a machine for triggering=20 bottlenecks easily it seems to me. --=20 Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html