From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o7CAkEKY206801 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:46:14 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A6F1D4AE8BB for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lUXRjlGjIBkoRCIP for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz4 with SMTP id 4so544130bwz.26 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:46:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Khelben Blackstaff Subject: Re: observed significant performance improvement using "delaylog" in Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:46:30 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201008121346.30760.eye.of.the.8eholder@gmail.com> 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 > I'm pleased to state that using the experimental "delaylog" mount option > (in vanilla linux-2.6.35) we measured a 17% performance increase > for our benchmark scenario. (Other mount-options in use both before > and after the "delaylog" option: noatime,nodiratime,nobarrier) > That's a lot given that XFS was the fastest performing file-system > for this application already. > So thanks to all contributing developers for this significant optimization! I did a benchmark (a simple copy/untar not something fancy) some time ago and also noticed great improvement. Here is my post with the results of the benchmark. http://lordkhelben.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/xfs-delayed-logging/ _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs