xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow)

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow)
From: gus3 <musicman529@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=sW1UWumvK306z33/Pzch9MPA/zMgzITwoNYiAjpN3JZWW8tSyzg8M3KNcaXcpvVwhtIyVSLVsvQmPBXvxIWk+i1NxTffw/FPCAu6rO7r1on/kPC0Cnf683CC4UvSlA2Z6CDBJ6ilcZ1ffGR2ZXkMhp+ATz/7uK/xjlEhOsWZxn8=;
In-reply-to: <48DB48E3.3020104@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: MusicMan529@xxxxxxxxx
--- On Thu, 9/25/08, Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >> 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?

Others' suggestions stand, but I have found the best way to speed up a 
journalled filesystem (of any kind) is with an external journal on a separate 
controller channel. If your XFS journal is internal, the RAID10 layer creates a 
longer data path when actions are recorded in the journal, then read from the 
journal, and finally committed to the main filesystem.

You may also investigate the speed of different elevator algorithms. XFS does 
best with "noop" or "deadline" in my experience. Most Linux distributions ship 
with "cfq" as their default elevator, which can clash badly against XFS.

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