From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o817jPi2115568 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 02:45:26 -0500 Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A31B21348083 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 00:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.164.54]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 8Ek7jHu2u1qw5xgA for ; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.i.zmi.at (h081217106033.dyn.cm.kabsi.at [81.217.106.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mailsrv2.i.zmi.at", Issuer "power4u.zmi.at" (not verified)) by mailsrv14.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DBD3417F for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:46:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from saturn.localnet (saturn.i.zmi.at [10.72.27.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailsrv.i.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6541401C2F for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:46:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Monnerie Subject: Re: deleting 2TB lots of files with delaylog: sync helps? Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:45:58 +0200 References: <201009010130.41500@zmi.at> <4C7DC21B.1040705@hardwarefreak.com> <20100901034156.GQ705@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20100901034156.GQ705@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201009010945.59204@zmi.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7607459603948428030==" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com --===============7607459603948428030== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3867035.TU2ypBMIjr"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart3867035.TU2ypBMIjr Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mittwoch, 1. September 2010 Dave Chinner wrote: > Without delayed logging, 150MB/s is enough for a single threaded > unlink to consume an entire CPU core on any modern CPU =20 Just as Stan I'm puzzled by this. Why is it such a hard work for the=20 CPU, what does it do? Is it really about calculating something, or has=20 it to do with lock contention, cold caches, cache line bouncing and=20 other "horrible" things so the CPU can't get it's maximum power? I'm=20 really curious to understand that. Maybe there should be an extra SSE4 assembler instruction "rm on XFS" so=20 we can delete files faster? ;-) =2D-=20 mit freundlichen Gr=FCssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee] Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 ****** Aktuelles Radiointerview! ****** http://www.it-podcast.at/aktuelle-sendung.html // Wir haben im Moment zwei H=E4user zu verkaufen: // http://zmi.at/langegg/ // http://zmi.at/haus2009/ --nextPart3867035.TU2ypBMIjr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkx+BLcACgkQzhSR9xwSCbSTCQCfah1m2Dz4K8AsHLePcdxIxQYl zuoAnRCYly2Fm78UsZCyZtK2IeS7rLWM =JWNC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3867035.TU2ypBMIjr-- --===============7607459603948428030== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs --===============7607459603948428030==--