[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: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:54:53 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <48DB48E3.3020104@xxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <48D9FDA1.8050701@xxxxxxxxx> <20080925002724.GA27997@disturbed> <48DB48E3.3020104@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:16:35AM +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2008-09-25 03:27, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:43:13AM +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions, the time for rm has improved a bit, but is
> still slower than reiserfs:
> time rm -rf gcc
> real    1m18.818s
> user    0m0.156s
> sys     0m11.777s
> Is there anything else I can try to make it faster?

Buy more disks. ;)

XFS is not really optimised for single disk, metadata intensive,
small file workloads. It scales by being able to keep lots of disks
busy at the same time. Those algorithms don't map to single disk
configs as efficiently as a filesystem that was specifically
designed for optimal performance for these workloads (like
reiserfs). We're working on making it better, but that takes time....


Dave Chinner

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