From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m99IFuPE007627 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:15:56 -0700 Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 102E513D5C1A for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (mondschein.lichtvoll.de [194.150.191.11]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Z7iPe3TDfBCFmJkf for ; Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shambhala.lichtvoll.local (DSL01.83.171.172.241.ip-pool.NEFkom.net [83.171.172.241]) by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F0095AE1E for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 20:17:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/7] XFS: dynamic busy extent tracking Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 20:17:32 +0200 References: <1223417377-8679-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> (sfid-20081008_111209_917116_76A20764) In-Reply-To: <1223417377-8679-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810092017.33042.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 Hi Dave, Am Mittwoch 08 Oktober 2008 schrieb Dave Chinner: > The busy extent tracking in XFS is currently very static and has > some performance issues. We can only track 128 busy extents per AG, > and when we overflow this we fall back to synchronous transactions. > Also, every time we re-use a busy extent we cause a synchronous log > force, which stops all allocation and freeing in that AG while the > log force is in progress. Could this accelerate tar -xf linux-2.6.26.tar.gz rm -r linux-2.6.26 ? A student in the Linux Performance Tuning course I hold this week compared this with ext3, even with the improved mkfs.xfs options (but without lazy-count=1, cause mkfs.xfs from Debian Etch is too old) and even with noop as IO scheduler. AFAIR XFS took roughly 3-4 times as long as Ext3, I did not note the exact numbers. This was with 2.6.25. I can repeat the test locally with 2.6.26.5 if wanted. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7