Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow)

["Török Edwin" <edwintorok@gmail.com>]

On 2008-09-25 03:27, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:43:13AM +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am happily using xfs for /var, /usr and /, and I am very pleased with
>> the read speed.
>> I've just recommended xfs to a friend, and he complained about the speed
>> of rm.
>>
>> I did a test on my box, and indeed the speed of rm is order of magnitude
>> slower compared to reiserfs.
>> I already use lazy-count, and noatime/nodiratime. Write barriers are off
>> because I run on raid10.
>>
>> Is there anything else I can tune to get faster rm speed?
>>     
>
> mount -o logbsize=262144 <dev> <mtpt>
>   

I've added it to my mount options, also tried logbufs=8 (but that didn't
make much difference).

>   
>> # mount | grep var
>> /dev/mapper/vg--all-lv--var on /var type xfs (rw,noatime,nodiratime)
>>     
>
> BTW, noatime implies nodiratime - you don't ned to specify both.
>
>   
>> tmpfs                 2.0G   12K  2.0G   1% /lib/init/rw
>> udev                   10M  188K  9.9M   2% /dev
>> tmpfs                 2.0G     0  2.0G   0% /dev/shm
>> /dev/mapper/vg--all-lv--usr
>>                       100G  5.3G   95G   6% /usr
>> /dev/mapper/vg--all-lv--var
>>                       1.3T  230G  1.1T  18% /var
>>     
>
> At 1.1T, you probably want to use inode64 for /var. The different
> allocation strategy of inode32 can be substantially slower than
> inode64.
>
>   

Thanks for the suggestions, the time for rm has improved a bit, but is
still slower than reiserfs:

time rm -rf gcc

real    1m18.818s
user    0m0.156s
sys     0m11.777s

Is there anything else I can try to make it faster?

Best regards,
--Edwin