From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q1DHQmte027544 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:26:49 -0600 Received: from smtprelay05.ispgateway.de (smtprelay05.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.93]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id dCoBRxRspU3bqMDU for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:26:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F3947D6.5060402@cape-horn-eng.com> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:26:46 +0100 From: Richard Ems MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: XFS unlink still slow on 3.1.9 kernel ? References: <4F394116.8080200@cape-horn-eng.com> <20120213170825.GA7197@infradead.org> <4F394442.9020307@cape-horn-eng.com> <20120213171556.GA13449@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20120213171556.GA13449@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 02/13/2012 06:15 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 06:11:30PM +0100, Richard Ems wrote: >> On 02/13/2012 06:08 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 05:57:58PM +0100, Richard Ems wrote: >>>> This is a backup system running dirvish, so most files in the dirs I am >>>> removing are hard links. Almost all of the files do have ACLs set. >>> >>> How many ACLs do you usually have set? If they aren't stored inline >>> but need to go out of the inode unlinks will be extremly slow for >>> kernels before v3.2. >>> >> >> Almost all dirs and files there do have ACLs set. >> Each of them do have about 10 user ACLs and 10 default ACls. >> Is that too many? >> Is this then the reason for being that slow? > = > That doesn't sound like a lot to me, but instead of guessing around, > let's just check the actual facts. > = > Does "xfs_bmap -a" for the kind of files you are deleting show any > extents? If it doesn't the output will look like: > = > # xfs_bmap -a internal > internal: no extents > = > if it has any it will look like: > = > # xfs_bmap -a external > external: > 0: [0..7]: 8557712..8557719 > = YES. All files (and dirs) that I checked do show something as 0: [0..7]: 18531216..18531223 So, what improvements can I expect from a kernel > 3.2 ? Can I read somewhere about the changes/patches introduced? Is there another way to mount/create/mkfs the XFS to improve the unlink time for this case? Thanks again, Richard -- = Richard Ems mail: Richard.Ems@Cape-Horn-Eng.com Cape Horn Engineering S.L. C/ Dr. J.J. D=F3mine 1, 5=BA piso 46011 Valencia Tel : +34 96 3242923 / Fax 924 http://www.cape-horn-eng.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs