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 p595iQ0T151480 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 00:44:27 -0500 Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 9EBECD90A68 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 22:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.164.54]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id EA8K4dFfOTQfUE5z for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:44:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Monnerie Subject: Re: Small files perform much faster on newly formatted fs? Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 07:44:12 +0200 References: <20110607163742.GH28625@pyre.virge.net> <201106081547.38266@zmi.at> <20110608185844.GB28625@pyre.virge.net> In-Reply-To: <20110608185844.GB28625@pyre.virge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201106090744.18277@zmi.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9096402335672338738==" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Cc: Norbert Veber --===============9096402335672338738== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1856266.RNKEPbcIMl"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart1856266.RNKEPbcIMl Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mittwoch, 8. Juni 2011 Norbert Veber wrote: > I re-created the test filesystem to be the same size (20gb) as the > original, and copied all the same files to it, so both are now 80% > full. But copying data at once leads to "perfectly" aligned data, and cannot=20 be compared to a filesystem that has aged over the years. Maybe you can=20 compare it like this: 1) remount the old partition with "noikeep" 2) mv /old/* /new 3) cp /new/* /old/ Maybe that would help? I'm interested to find the difference. Also, as Eric said, both partitions are on different locations on the=20 disks, but I guess your old partition is more outside, thus in the=20 quicker region, than the new partition. Is that true? Could it be that the old filesystem gets mounted with different=20 logbufs/logbsize values? Would the mount options=20 "logbufs=3D8,logbsize=3D256k" maybe make a difference? Is the position of the log area fixed on disk? Maybe that is not stripe=20 aligned. Could you check with a newer kernel using "delaylog"? [Dave wrote] > Those mount options are ignored if the filesystem doesn't have the > superblock feature bit set for aligned allocations. A filesystem > with 0/0 for sunit/swidth does not have the superblock bit set.... And I guess it's not possible to set that bit now? =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 // Haus zu verkaufen: http://zmi.at/langegg/ --nextPart1856266.RNKEPbcIMl 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) iEYEABECAAYFAk3wXbIACgkQzhSR9xwSCbTSrQCg7SuTSwEnw+FoVZTWMDDM4dgE RK8AoLS1VdvYCTXTFCouzLx/Jb0IKDDW =xZh2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1856266.RNKEPbcIMl-- --===============9096402335672338738== 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 --===============9096402335672338738==--