xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: observed significant performance improvement using "delaylog" in

To: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: observed significant performance improvement using "delaylog" in
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:29:07 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <201008131235.45050@xxxxxx>
References: <201008121346.30760.eye.of.the.8eholder@xxxxxxxxx> <i41q43$6td$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C6516CA.2010602@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201008131235.45050@xxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:35:44PM +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Freitag, 13. August 2010 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Some benchmark results maybe worth a look:
> > http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/
>  
> Thanks - it would have been great to see xfs with delaylog in that 
> comparison, but the graphs are very very nice.
> 
> XFS seems performing better the more threads there are, just in "large 
> file random reads" it's the slowest - why this?

Any idea who is doing these runs?  Once we figure out what that large
file random reads loads is I'm sure we could fix it soon.  And asking
him/her to add -o delaylog would also be good.

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