From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m8P8FABC010455 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:15:10 -0700 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B37B21079064 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.188]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 1kamaAF0xqViTjxB for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id h3so313537nfh.42 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:16:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48DB48E3.3020104@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:16:35 +0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?T=F6r=F6k_Edwin?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow) References: <48D9FDA1.8050701@gmail.com> <20080925002724.GA27997@disturbed> In-Reply-To: <20080925002724.GA27997@disturbed> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: xfs@oss.sgi.com, david@fromorbit.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 > 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