xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow)

To: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow)
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:27:24 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <48D9FDA1.8050701@xxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <48D9FDA1.8050701@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:43:13AM +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am happily using xfs for /var, /usr and /, and I am very pleased with
> the read speed.
> I've just recommended xfs to a friend, and he complained about the speed
> of rm.
> 
> I did a test on my box, and indeed the speed of rm is order of magnitude
> slower compared to reiserfs.
> I already use lazy-count, and noatime/nodiratime. Write barriers are off
> because I run on raid10.
> 
> Is there anything else I can tune to get faster rm speed?

mount -o logbsize=262144 <dev> <mtpt>

> # mount | grep var
> /dev/mapper/vg--all-lv--var on /var type xfs (rw,noatime,nodiratime)

BTW, noatime implies nodiratime - you don't ned to specify both.

> tmpfs                 2.0G   12K  2.0G   1% /lib/init/rw
> udev                   10M  188K  9.9M   2% /dev
> tmpfs                 2.0G     0  2.0G   0% /dev/shm
> /dev/mapper/vg--all-lv--usr
>                       100G  5.3G   95G   6% /usr
> /dev/mapper/vg--all-lv--var
>                       1.3T  230G  1.1T  18% /var

At 1.1T, you probably want to use inode64 for /var. The different
allocation strategy of inode32 can be substantially slower than
inode64.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>