On Sun, 9 Sep 2001 at 13:17, Dirk Wetter wrote:
> a user complained that /rm -rf of 400MB / takes ~10 minutes (!) until
> the command returns, whereas on the systems with reiserfs we have e.g.
> it takes seconds.
This is expected. XFS does deletes synchronously. ReiserFS doesn't.
ReiserFS is really good at deleting, as a matter of fact, for which reason
I highly recommend it over any other Linux filesystem for such
delete-intensive operations as Squid caches.
You may be interested to study the mongo.pl results comparing ReiserFS and
XFS for various file sizes in <http://www.namesys.com/>.
> i don't know so much about the quality of the data, my guess is that
> some files are small (~100k), others a big (a few hundred MB).
Note that ~100k is not small relative to the mongo.pl benchmarks that will
show you that XFS starts "beating" ReserFS in most performances except
deletes at around 10k. So IMHO you're still better off with XFS.
> i read in the FAQ that XFS isn't particular good in rm-rf'ing files,
> which isn't really *the *issue for us, because in 99.9%of the time
> data is being read from the volume and not removed via rm -rf.
It's not good for deleting massive numbers of files. Deleting one large
file is instantaneous, though. But like you said, 99.9% (only?) of the
time, you don't delete all your data, right? Unless you're talking of a
cache.
> is there an mount/filecreation option to tweak without loosing
> performance while reading?
None that I know of. One developer (was it Steve Lord? I can't remember
clearly now) joked that you could mount the filesystem synchronously. That
way you don't feel the speed difference. Hahaha. :)
--> Jijo
--
Federico Sevilla III :: jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Network Administrator :: The Leather Collection, Inc.
GnuPG Key: <http://jijo.leathercollection.ph/jijo.gpg>
|