| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Speed up xfsdump ? |
| From: | Nicolas Kowalski <Nicolas.Kowalski@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:48:02 +0200 |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509130933130.25299@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <4325BA69.4070709@xxxxxxx> <20050912174223.51325.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050913123852.Z4874818@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509131303010.6178@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4326D34C.9010404@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509131541410.6974@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509130933130.25299@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, dean gaudet wrote: > On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Nicolas Kowalski wrote: > > > PS: as an additional test, on the same array/server, I created an ext3 > > filesystem, pushed the same files than for the XFS/xfsdump > > tests, and ran a dump session: > > if the xfs filesystem was created "live" and had files added/deleted > along the way it's likely to be more fragmented than a freshly created > ext3 filesystem which had a bunch of files copied to it right after > being created... one more test you might want to do is a fresh xfs fs > which you populate the same way you populated the ext3 fs. That's what I do: all my tests with xfsdump are done on a newly created/populated filesystem, so that fragmentation does not "corrupt" my results. -- Nicolas |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Speed up xfsdump ?, dean gaudet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Speed up xfsdump ?, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Speed up xfsdump ?, dean gaudet |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Speed up xfsdump ?, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |