From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 06 May 2008 11:55:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m46IsvDU009169 for ; Tue, 6 May 2008 11:54:59 -0700 Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 12E98B1C9E9 for ; Tue, 6 May 2008 11:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (mondschein.lichtvoll.de [194.150.191.11]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ajozqk36i7hrfzEb for ; Tue, 06 May 2008 11:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.21] (e179178177.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.179.178.177]) by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F735AE2C for ; Tue, 6 May 2008 20:54:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: XFS for lots of small files Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 20:55:36 +0200 References: <4820832B.3070903@dubielvitrum.pl> (sfid-20080506_185726_779300_46423265) In-Reply-To: <4820832B.3070903@dubielvitrum.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805062055.36755.Martin@lichtvoll.de> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Am Dienstag 06 Mai 2008 schrieb Leszek Dubiel: > Hello! Hi Leszek, > I consider moving server from reiserfs to xfs. In all benchmarks I have > read both file systems have had comparable results. > > But I've made a test: > > 1. formated /dev/hda2 with reiserfs with default options and made > 10.000 files > 2. formated /dev/hda2 with xfs with default options and made 10.000 > > Reiserfs created those files in 2 (two) seconds, and xfs created them > in 35 (thirty five) seconds. > > Is that normal? What I am doing wrong? > > My system is Debian, current stable version. Below is a log of > operation. > > > Thanks in advance. [...] > debian:/mnt/hdc2# time for f in `seq 9999`; do echo $f > $f; done > > real 0m35.558s > user 0m0.256s > sys 0m1.080s > > debian:/mnt/hdc2# time cat * | wc -l > 9999 > > real 0m0.239s > user 0m0.020s > sys 0m0.172s I get martin@shambala:~/Zeit/filetest -> rm *; sync ; time for ((I=1; I<=10000; I=I+1)); do echo $I > $I; done real 0m10.642s user 0m0.907s sys 0m1.713s martin@shambala:~/Zeit/filetest -> sync ; time cat * >/dev/null real 0m0.238s user 0m0.087s sys 0m0.153s martin@shambala:~/Zeit/filetest -> sync ; time cat * | wc -l 10000 real 0m0.375s user 0m0.120s sys 0m0.247s martin@shambala:~/Zeit/filetest -> sync ; time rm * real 0m7.600s user 0m0.113s sys 0m1.377s for XFS with optimized settings... shambala> xfs_info /home meta-data=/dev/sda5 isize=256 agcount=6, agsize=4883256 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2 data = bsize=4096 blocks=29299536, imaxpct=25 = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=32768, version=2 = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 agcount is two more than would be optimal cause I growed the partition once. shambala> mount | grep home /dev/sda5 on /home type xfs (rw,relatime,logbsize=256k,logbufs=8) This is on a ThinkPad T42 internal laptop 160 GB harddisk drive with I think 5400rpm. Partition I tested on was not empty at that time and is heavily used. shambala> LANG=EN df -h /home Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda5 112G 84G 29G 75% /home And there is quite some fragmentation on it: xfs_db> frag actual 653519, ideal 587066, fragmentation factor 10.17% I do not have free space in my playground LVM to test against ext3 and reiserfs at the moment. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7