From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:15:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id kAAHFEaG014172 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:15:16 -0800 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [66.187.233.31]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D9DC05163E4 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:14:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4554B36E.9030006@sandeen.net> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:14:22 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: XFS filesystem performance drop in kernels 2.6.16+ References: <4553F3C6.2030807@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: "Igor A. Valcov" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Igor A. Valcov wrote: > Below is a simplified version of the test program, and results of > testing different kernels/filesystems/mount options. The results are a > little different from the ones described in the initial post (this > time performance decreased "only" 2 times), but the general tendency > is clearly the same. I imagine that I know the answer, but to be sure you might put some time checks into your test app to see -which- portion of the test is taking the bulk of the time. -Eric