Re: observed significant performance improvement using "delaylog" in

[Peter Niemayer <niemayer@isg.de>]

On 08/12/2010 09:05 PM, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 12. August 2010 Khelben Blackstaff wrote:
>> Here is my post with the results of the benchmark.
>> http://lordkhelben.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/xfs-delayed-logging/
>
> Wow, BTRFS rocks.

Be sure to measure your specific use-case before jumping
to conclusions.

With our application, for example, Btrfs performed exceptionally
bad - about 4 times(!) as slow as XFS.

Then again, there are some use-cases where even older
file-systems like reiser3 excel (e.g. storing files for
cyrus imapd).


> But I'm stunned that XFS is that much slower than ext4 in many tests.

Again, it all depends on the use-case. For us, ext4
performs good (when used with all kinds of performance-enhancing,
safety-reducing mount-options), but not as good as XFS.

To me, as of today, XFS' big strength is performing good to
excellent (while not always better than all other file-systems)
in many use-cases - without worries about instability or immaturity.


One thing, I guess, is for sure: Every file-system will require
continued development to stay competitive.

SSDs, for example, are just beginning to get used appropriately
by modern file-systems. There's plenty of opportunity left to
optimize for them.

And once that is done, there may be yet another storage-technology
available (PRAM? Racetrack?), that benefits from specific strategies.

So the competition will stay open... :-)

Regards,

Peter Niemayer


_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs