From: David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
To: Szabolcs Illes <S.Illes@westminster.ac.uk>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: After reboot fs with barrier faster deletes then fs with nobarrier
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:20:40 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070627222040.GR989688@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <op.tuldjrzef7nho5@sunset.cpc.wmin.ac.uk>
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 06:58:29PM +0100, Szabolcs Illes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am using XFS on my laptop, I have realized that nobarrier mount options
> sometimes slows down deleting large number of small files, like the kernel
> source tree. I made four tests, deleting the kernel source right after
> unpack and after reboot, with both barrier and nobarrier options:
>
> mount opts: rw,noatime,nodiratime,logbsize=256k,logbufs=2
>
> illes@sunset:~/tmp> tar xjf ~/Download/linux-2.6.21.5.tar.bz2 && sync &&
> reboot
>
> After reboot:
> illes@sunset:~/tmp> time rm -rf linux-2.6.21.5/
>
> real 0m28.127s
> user 0m0.044s
> sys 0m2.924s
>
> illes@sunset:~/tmp> tar xjf ~/Download/linux-2.6.21.5.tar.bz2 && sync
> illes@sunset:~/tmp> time rm -rf linux-2.6.21.5/
>
> real 0m14.872s
> user 0m0.044s
> sys 0m2.872s
Of course the second run will be faster here - the inodes are already in
cache and so there's no reading from disk needed to find the files
to delete....
That's because run time after reboot is determined by how fast you
can traverse the directory structure (i.e. how many seeks are
involved). Barriers will have little impact on the uncached rm -rf
results, but as the cached rm time will be log-I/O bound, nobarrier
will be far faster (as you've found out).
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-27 22:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-27 17:58 After reboot fs with barrier faster deletes then fs with nobarrier Szabolcs Illes
2007-06-27 21:45 ` Chris Wedgwood
2007-06-27 22:18 ` Szabolcs Illes
2007-06-27 22:20 ` David Chinner [this message]
2007-06-28 5:00 ` Timothy Shimmin
2007-06-28 14:22 ` Szabolcs Illes
2007-06-28 22:02 ` David Chinner
2007-06-29 7:03 ` Timothy Shimmin
2007-06-29 0:16 ` David Chinner
2007-06-29 12:01 ` Szabolcs Illes
2007-07-02 13:01 ` David Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070627222040.GR989688@sgi.com \
--to=dgc@sgi.com \
--cc=S.Illes@westminster.ac.uk \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox