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 p41FTOrq181751 for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 10:29:25 -0500 Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 37D8442466E for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 08:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.164.54]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 9HLnSSWKdvJnH5hs for ; Sun, 01 May 2011 08:32:58 -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 54760522 for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 17:32:57 +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 8A319401C3A for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 17:32:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Monnerie Subject: Re: xfs performance problem Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 17:32:51 +0200 References: <4DB72084.8020205@inf.ethz.ch> <20110501084919.GE13542@dastard> <19901.28769.553575.864887@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> In-Reply-To: <19901.28769.553575.864887@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201105011732.56226@zmi.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1577989966402129292==" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com --===============1577989966402129292== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2760581.x8BJke0XJx"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart2760581.x8BJke0XJx Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=20 this back from "benchmarking" to "user experience". The OP didn't=20 benchmark, he just noticed that on ext3 unpacking the kernel source was=20 much faster than on XFS, on his machine. Step back from "benchmarking", and just read the words, forget about=20 benchmarks. With ext3, the user can start "make menuconfig" much earlier=20 than with xfs. In this specific case, the user is not interested if it's=20 safer, or already on disk, or running in the background. The user want's=20 to do his work, period. And that is - for this specific case on his=20 hardware (and probably on every hardware?) - much quicker with ext3 than=20 with xfs. I'd be interested why it is like that, and if there is anything to do=20 about it in xfs to become faster, or as-fast-as ext3, for this specific=20 case? =2D-=20 mit freundlichen Gr=FCssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services: Prot=E9ger 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 //=20 // Haus zu verkaufen: http://zmi.at/langegg/ --nextPart2760581.x8BJke0XJx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk29fSgACgkQzhSR9xwSCbRJxQCgmMvPxVYaTFYZKZAgihu9X1Ot CAIAn31dlmYVDPcThwIzgn/Otb7MZaF2 =PTRe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2760581.x8BJke0XJx-- --===============1577989966402129292== 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 --===============1577989966402129292==--