From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:09:45 -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 m9A79g1G014768 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:09:42 -0700 Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 9C4B113DB7E7 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (mondschein.lichtvoll.de [194.150.191.11]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ttQtZTCt0uP2I9Ug for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:11:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/7] XFS: dynamic busy extent tracking Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:11:18 +0200 References: <1223417377-8679-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <200810092017.33042.Martin@lichtvoll.de> <20081009223328.GI9597@disturbed> (sfid-20081010_090018_216466_C5ADA5AA) In-Reply-To: <20081009223328.GI9597@disturbed> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810100911.19345.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 Cc: Dave Chinner Am Freitag 10 Oktober 2008 schrieben Sie: > On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:17:32PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Hi Dave, [...] > > 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. > > Yes, that's par for the course. XFS journals transactions almost > immediately, whereas ext3 gathers lots of changees in memory and > checkpoints infrequently. Hence XFS writes a lot more to the > journal and is hence slower. The dynamic extent tracking is a > necessary step to moving the XFS journalling to a more > checkpoint-like setup which would perform much less journal > I/O and hence run substantially faster.... > > See the asynchronous transaction aggregation section here: > > http://xfs.org/index.php/Improving_Metadata_Performance_By_Reducing_Jou >rnal_Overhead Thanks for the info Dave. I still have your three mails about future improvements on XFS on my reading list. I just read a bit of the first one. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7