xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions

To: Geoffrey Wehrman <gwehrman@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:51:09 -0400
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20090904133737.GD12052@xxxxxxx>
References: <20090902175531.469184575@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090903204940.GB24510@xxxxxxx> <20090904025753.GB7146@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090904133737.GD12052@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 08:37:37AM -0500, Geoffrey Wehrman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 12:57:53PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> | Christoph asked me to repeat what I said on #xfs w.r.t the regression.
> 
> Thank you for the detailed description.  All I had was a statement from
> January 2008, "Barry has completed the memory optimization, but initial
> testing shows that performance has regressed."  That was the last update
> recorded on Barry's work.
> 
> | With that in mind, I think the memory usage optimisation is far more
> | important to the majority of XFS users than the CPU usage regression
> | it causes as the majority of users don't have RAM-rich environments
> | to run repair in.
> 
> I agree.

In my testing I haven't seen big differences in performance, it
sometimes got a bit faster and sometimes a bit slower.  I will send out
a more detailed performace report in a few days.

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