From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mAPM2RwY010825 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:02:28 -0600 Received: from mx2.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 8C4E615F6478 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:02:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.redhat.com (mx2.redhat.com [66.187.237.31]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id iovGw9HGjfoL37q1 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:02:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <492C6C9B.3060000@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:22:35 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Extreme slowness with xfs [WAS: Re: Slowness with new pc] References: <1226760254.5089.11.camel@chevrolet> <430c4fa50811180551r67d5d680tf1ffa493604ac4ea@mail.gmail.com> <1227476908.32357.5.camel@chevrolet> <1227485956.5145.10.camel@chevrolet> <1227569808.5039.6.camel@chevrolet> <1227645887.7992.10.camel@chevrolet> In-Reply-To: <1227645887.7992.10.camel@chevrolet> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Stian Jordet Cc: Sven-Haegar Koch , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Stian Jordet wrote: > ti., 25.11.2008 kl. 01.09 +0100, skrev Sven-Haegar Koch: >> I had the same problem when I tried it on my laptop (T60) - using it on >> the unencrypted root filesystem (with /usr/src) took ages, using it on >> the LUKS encrypted /home was blasing fast - on the same disk. >> >> This test was some time ago with something like 2.6.20 or 2.6.24 - I >> gave up and reformatted / with ext3 as I needed the machine. >> >> I think barriers were the problem, they seem to cost performance like >> hell, especially for operations with many small files. My laptop used >> barriers for xfs on the direct partition, but not on crypto drivermapper >> mounts. >> >> So perhaps try mounting with nobarrier and see if the speed problem goes >> away - but know that you sacrifice some crash-resilience when doing so. > > Barriers were the problem indeed. My old system had no problems with > barriers, but here it did an incredible difference. Depending on the old system, perhaps its storage did not allow the barriers to be honored, so after xfs saw a test barrier write fail at mount time, it disabled them ... you'd see a message if that were the case, FWIW. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs