On Montag, 3. Mai 2010 Dave Chinner wrote:
> Many have. Find and tar have resisted attempts to optimise them over
> the years, so stuff like this:
>
> http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/acp/
> grows on the interwebs all over the place... ;)
Uh, that makes a nice 3818 IOPS with 161MB/s:
xvdb 3818,16 0,80 161449,90 35,13 84,57 10,75
2,30 0,26 99,88
And even saw >4kIOPS an 180MB/s. Nice.
The tool gave me an idea:
lvchange -r 1024 /dev/all_my_lvm_stores
And this boots copy performance a lot: With the default "-r 128" I had
around 10-30MB/s, now 30-100MB/s. Of course this depends on the type of
access and so on, but at least during moving back all the data from the
backup lvm to the re-created original lvm it's a drastic speedup.
> > # time find /mountpoint/ -inum 107901420
> > real 0m30.113s
> > user 0m0.540s
> > sys 0m9.813s
> >
> > Caching helps the 2nd time :-)
>
> That still seems rather slow traversing 750,000 cached directory
> entries. My laptop (1.3GHz CULV core2 CPU) does 465,000 directory
> entries in:
>
> $ time sudo find / -mount -inum 123809285
>
> real 0m2.196s
> user 0m0.384s
> sys 0m1.464s
So why was it so slow here?
As soon as moving back all data is finished, I can retry if search speed
increased.
--
mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc
it-management Internet Services
http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee]
Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31
// Wir haben im Moment zwei Häuser zu verkaufen:
// http://zmi.at/langegg/
// http://zmi.at/haus2009/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
|