xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: observed significant performance improvement using "delaylog" in a r

To: Peter Niemayer <niemayer@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: observed significant performance improvement using "delaylog" in a real-world application
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:44:20 +1000
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <i3ul1b$d3b$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <i3rt4t$46c$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201008111003.36890@xxxxxx> <i3trg6$eps$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201008111428.31196@xxxxxx> <i3ul1b$d3b$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 07:01:31PM +0200, Peter Niemayer wrote:
> On 08/11/2010 02:28 PM, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> >Thank you. Are those files located within one dir or do you use a hash
> >structure like squid cache does?
> 
> There's only a shallow hierarchy (for functional, not for distribution
> reasons), so the relevant directories have thousands of files in them.
> 
> I think after the "ext2"-age no serious file system ever had
> a real problem dealing with lots of files in one directory -
> or do you have contradicting information?

Define "lots of files". :)

>From my numbers, ext3/4 still fall way behind XFS and btrfs when it
comes to handling directories with tens of thousands of entries or
larger. Especially on cold-cache random lookups.

XFS also has quite sophisticated internal directory readahead, so
under the cold cache directory performance of XFS is far better than
ext3/4 can acheive, even for relatively small directories. IIRC this
difference in directory lookup performance was one of the prime
reasons kernel.org switched from ext3 to XFS a couple of years
back...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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