From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:56356 "EHLO relay4-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754000Ab2LCQ6e convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:58:34 -0500 Message-ID: <50BCDA36.1050900@petaramesh.org> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:58:30 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sw=E2mi_Petaramesh?= MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Schmidt CC: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Example of BTRFS uglyssima performance : Bitcoin References: <50BC92F6.6050404@petaramesh.org> <50BCCB85.9010905@jan-o-sch.net> In-Reply-To: <50BCCB85.9010905@jan-o-sch.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 03/12/2012 16:55, Jan Schmidt a écrit : > Use ubuntu (which in the default setup means you're using ecryptfs for > your /home), I actually do not use ecryptfs here, but OTOH I have BTRFS over LUKS/LVM. But I've been using pretty *anything over LUKS/LVM for years, and I've never notice it cause any (noticeable to the point of becoming annoying) system slowdown, whatever tasks I may have processed in such setups (including servers, big databases, compilations, NAS, etc...) So I doubt that the encryption is involved here... At least not very heavily involved. But I may ask my son if he volunteers to test the same on his unencrypted BTRFS netbook... > Besides that, as Hugo told you, you can disable btrfs cow on the database files, > but given my experiences I wouldn't put too much hope into that part. As far as I understood, this option won't work unless I have a 3.7+ kernel... BTW, what is the effect of "nocow" with respect to snapshots ? I would assume that then, snapshots contain the current data ? Kind regards. -- Swâmi Petaramesh http://petaramesh.org PGP 9076E32E Ne cherchez pas : Je ne suis pas sur Facebook.