Am Freitag 10 Oktober 2008 schrieben Sie:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:17:32PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> > A student in the Linux Performance Tuning course I hold this week
> > compared this with ext3, even with the improved mkfs.xfs options (but
> > without lazy-count=1, cause mkfs.xfs from Debian Etch is too old) and
> > even with noop as IO scheduler. AFAIR XFS took roughly 3-4 times as
> > long as Ext3, I did not note the exact numbers. This was with 2.6.25.
> > I can repeat the test locally with 126.96.36.199 if wanted.
> Yes, that's par for the course. XFS journals transactions almost
> immediately, whereas ext3 gathers lots of changees in memory and
> checkpoints infrequently. Hence XFS writes a lot more to the
> journal and is hence slower. The dynamic extent tracking is a
> necessary step to moving the XFS journalling to a more
> checkpoint-like setup which would perform much less journal
> I/O and hence run substantially faster....
> See the asynchronous transaction aggregation section here:
Thanks for the info Dave.
I still have your three mails about future improvements on XFS on my
reading list. I just read a bit of the first one.
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7