From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: Btrfs v0.16 released Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:52:52 -0400 Message-ID: <1218822772.15342.503.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> References: <1217962876.15342.33.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <1218100464.8625.9.camel@twins> <1218105597.15342.189.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <877ias66v4.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <1218221293.15342.263.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <1218747656.15342.439.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20080814234458.GD13048@mit.edu> <1218762627.15342.447.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <1218804361.15342.470.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20080815134545.GM13048@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andi Kleen , Peter Zijlstra , linux-btrfs , linux-kernel , linux-fsdevel To: Theodore Tso Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080815134545.GM13048@mit.edu> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 09:45 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 08:46:01AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > Whoops the link above is wrong, try: > > > > http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/compilebench > > Thanks, I figured it out. > > > It is worth noting that the end throughput doesn't matter quite as much > > as the writeback pattern. Ext4 is pretty solid on this test, with very > > consistent results. > > There were two reasons why I wanted to play with compilebench. The > first is we have a fragmentation problem with delayed allocation and > small files getting forced out due to memory pressure, that we've been > working for the past week. Have you tried this one: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/25560 This bug should cause fragmentation on small files getting forced out due to memory pressure in ext4. But, I wasn't able to really demonstrate it with ext4 on my machine. -chris