From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: Thomas Lynema <lyz27@yahoo.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Poor performance using discard
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 00:59:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120301055943.GA23051@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F4E809A.40308@sandeen.net>
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:46:34PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 2/28/12 10:08 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > Also, I think you need to provide a block trace (output of
> > blktrace/blkparse for the rm -rf workloads) for both the XFS and
> > ext4 cases so we can see what discards are actually being issued and
> > how long they take to complete....
> >
>
> I ran a quick test on a loopback device on 3.3.0-rc4. Loopback supports
> discards. I made 1G filesystems on loopback on ext4 & xfs, mounted with
> -o discard, cloned a git tree to them, and ran rm -rf; sync under blktrace.
>
> XFS took about 11 seconds, ext4 took about 1.7.
>
> (without trim, times were roughly the same - but discard/trim is probably
> quite fast on the looback file)
>
> Both files were reduced in disk usage about the same amount, so online
> discard was working for both:
>
> # du -h ext4_fsfile xfs_fsfile
> 497M ext4_fsfile
> 491M xfs_fsfile
>
> XFS issued many more discards than ext4:
XFS frees inode blocks, directory blocks and btree blocks. ext4 only
ever frees data blocks and the occasional indirect block on files.
So a proper discard implementation on XFS without either a reall fast
non-blocking and/or vectored trim (like actually supported in hardware)
XFS will be fairly slow.
Unfortunately all the required bits are missing in the Linux block
layer, thus you really should use fstrim for now.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-01 5:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-28 22:56 Poor performance using discard Thomas Lynema
2012-02-28 23:58 ` Peter Grandi
2012-02-29 1:22 ` Dave Chinner
2012-02-29 2:00 ` Thomas Lynema
2012-02-29 4:08 ` Dave Chinner
2012-02-29 10:38 ` Peter Grandi
2012-02-29 19:46 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-03-01 5:59 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2012-03-01 6:27 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-01 6:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
[not found] ` <1330658311.6438.24.camel@core24>
2012-03-02 14:57 ` Thomas Lynema
2012-03-02 15:41 ` Thomas Lynema
2012-03-05 3:02 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-05 6:41 ` Jeffrey Hundstad
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=20120301055943.GA23051@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=lyz27@yahoo.com \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--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