From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ia0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:36403 "EHLO mail-ia0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751033Ab2LCTdA convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:33:00 -0500 Received: by mail-ia0-f174.google.com with SMTP id y25so2455370iay.19 for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:33:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <50BC92F6.6050404@petaramesh.org> References: <50BC92F6.6050404@petaramesh.org> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:32:59 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Example of BTRFS uglyssima performance : Bitcoin From: Gregory Maxwell To: =?UTF-8?Q?Sw=C3=A2mi_Petaramesh?= Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote: > I assume it an SQL DB (SQlite or so ?) It's BDB with a very pessimal random write workload updating transaction indexes with stuffed full of sync writes, interspersed with an equal amount of random reads. (The next version of the software will change the backend in several ways, including replacing BDB with leveldb and its orders of magnitude faster; but for now it's probably a fine FS abusive test case)