From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 14 Oct 2007 07:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postfix2-g20.free.fr (postfix2-g20.free.fr [212.27.60.43]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l9EEnVfL019415 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 07:49:33 -0700 Received: from smtp7-g19.free.fr (smtp7-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.64]) by postfix2-g20.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010C21BBD132 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:48:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:49:23 +0200 From: Emmanuel Florac Subject: Re: Latencies in XFS. Message-ID: <20071014164923.083d55dd@galadriel.home> In-Reply-To: <20071014012323.1d6c9e8e@alpha.digital-domain.net> References: <20071009163635.413dec0c@zeus.pccl.info> <20071013201015.4a8008bb@galadriel.home> <20071014012323.1d6c9e8e@alpha.digital-domain.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Andrew Clayton Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Le Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:23:23 +0100 vous écriviez: > > I notice you use a bleeding-edge unstable kernel, with a whole new > > scheduler. I tried your benchmark on a machine running a known > > stable kernel (2.6.20.17) and the slowdown is similar in xfs and > > other fs. > > I don't see the slowdown in ext3. I tried it and the slowdown is proportionnally similar, though XFS is slower IO-wise. -- -------------------------------------------------- Emmanuel Florac www.intellique.com --------------------------------------------------