From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 mAQCV2Kp013388 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:31:02 -0600 Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D3E5B1BE296A for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:31:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (mondschein.lichtvoll.de [194.150.191.11]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id gCcHCtfVM6O94AGo for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:31:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from shambala.of.teamix.net (blackhole.teamix.net [194.150.191.251]) by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C0475ADF2 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:30:28 +0100 (CET) From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: Extreme slowness with xfs [WAS: Re: Slowness with new pc] Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:30:26 +0100 References: <1226760254.5089.11.camel@chevrolet> <492B5684.2080107@sandeen.net> <1227647010.7992.34.camel@chevrolet> (sfid-20081125_220944_366364_C8DFDCD4) In-Reply-To: <1227647010.7992.34.camel@chevrolet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811261330.27328.Martin@lichtvoll.de> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Am Dienstag 25 November 2008 schrieb Stian Jordet: > ma., 24.11.2008 kl. 19.36 -0600, skrev Eric Sandeen: > > I don't know if the storage you're on passes barriers or not, but xfs > > has barriers on by default, while ext3 does not. ext3 will still > > likely > > win the "untar a kernel" race, but for a fairer test, make the > > barrier settings consistent between the two. > > As I wrote earlier, the point wasn't to find the fastest fs. That's not > what I'm looking for. I just want xfs to perform at least as good on my > new workstation as it did on my six years old other workstation. > > Which disabling barriers helped (notice the rm -rf with barriers... > nobarrier is almost 200 times faster, 10 times faster on the > unpacking): [...] > ### Ext3 > > time bash -c 'tar xjf linux-2.6.27.7.tar.bz2 ; sync' > > real 0m18.663s > user 0m14.693s > sys 0m2.828s > > > time bash -c 'rm -r linux-2.6.27.7 ; sync' > real 0m0.635s > user 0m0.028s > sys 0m0.564s It would be interesting to know the value on Ext3 with barriers. I wonder whether XFS performance with barriers enabled can be improved? And whether XFS with disabled write cache (via hdparm) but without barriers might even be *faster* than XFS with barriers... One thing to test eventually. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs