public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at>
To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: xfs performance problem
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 17:32:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201105011732.56226@zmi.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19901.28769.553575.864887@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1465 bytes --]

On Sonntag, 1. Mai 2011 Peter Grandi wrote:
>   But when one sees comical "performance" comparisons without
>   even cache flushing, explaining the difference between a
>   performance problem and different safety/speed tradeoffs seems
>   a bit wasted.

Before people run aroung peeing each other on the leg, I'd like to bring 
this back from "benchmarking" to "user experience". The OP didn't 
benchmark, he just noticed that on ext3 unpacking the kernel source was 
much faster than on XFS, on his machine.

Step back from "benchmarking", and just read the words, forget about 
benchmarks. With ext3, the user can start "make menuconfig" much earlier 
than with xfs. In this specific case, the user is not interested if it's 
safer, or already on disk, or running in the background. The user want's 
to do his work, period. And that is - for this specific case on his 
hardware (and probably on every hardware?) - much quicker with ext3 than 
with xfs.

I'd be interested why it is like that, and if there is anything to do 
about it in xfs to become faster, or as-fast-as ext3, for this specific 
case?

-- 
mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc

it-management Internet Services: Protéger
http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee]
Tel: +43 660 / 415 6531

// ****** Radiointerview zum Thema Spam ******
// http://www.it-podcast.at/archiv.html#podcast-100716
// 
// Haus zu verkaufen: http://zmi.at/langegg/

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 121 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-05-01 15:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-26 19:44 xfs performance problem Benjamin Schindler
2011-04-26 22:12 ` Stan Hoeppner
2011-04-26 23:23   ` Benjamin Schindler
2011-04-26 23:59   ` Benjamin Schindler
2011-04-29 15:00     ` Peter Grandi
2011-04-30 20:36       ` Michael Monnerie
2011-05-01  8:49       ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-01 14:38         ` Peter Grandi
2011-05-01 15:08           ` Peter Grandi
2011-05-01 15:32           ` Michael Monnerie [this message]
2011-05-01 17:04             ` Peter Grandi
2011-05-02  2:50           ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-02 20:10             ` Emmanuel Florac
2011-05-01 13:33     ` Peter Grandi
2011-05-01 16:32     ` Peter Grandi
2011-04-27  7:55   ` Michael Weissenbacher
2011-04-27  8:09     ` Benjamin Schindler
2011-04-27  2:35 ` Dave Chinner
2011-04-29 16:27   ` Martin Steigerwald
2011-05-01  8:52     ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-01 16:55       ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-01 18:24         ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-05-02 10:14           ` Christoph Hellwig
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-04-29 16:28 Martin Steigerwald
2011-04-29 19:51 ` Peter Grandi
2011-05-01 16:56 ` Benjamin Schindler

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201105011732.56226@zmi.at \
    --to=michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox