[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs performance problem

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs performance problem
From: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 17:32:51 +0200
In-reply-to: <19901.28769.553575.864887@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: it-management http://it-management.at
References: <4DB72084.8020205@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20110501084919.GE13542@dastard> <19901.28769.553575.864887@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; )
On Sonntag, 1. Mai 2011 Peter Grandi wrote:
>   But when one sees comical "performance" comparisons without
>   even cache flushing, explaining the difference between a
>   performance problem and different safety/speed tradeoffs seems
>   a bit wasted.

Before people run aroung peeing each other on the leg, I'd like to bring 
this back from "benchmarking" to "user experience". The OP didn't 
benchmark, he just noticed that on ext3 unpacking the kernel source was 
much faster than on XFS, on his machine.

Step back from "benchmarking", and just read the words, forget about 
benchmarks. With ext3, the user can start "make menuconfig" much earlier 
than with xfs. In this specific case, the user is not interested if it's 
safer, or already on disk, or running in the background. The user want's 
to do his work, period. And that is - for this specific case on his 
hardware (and probably on every hardware?) - much quicker with ext3 than 
with xfs.

I'd be interested why it is like that, and if there is anything to do 
about it in xfs to become faster, or as-fast-as ext3, for this specific 

mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc

it-management Internet Services: Protéger
http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee]
Tel: +43 660 / 415 6531

// ****** Radiointerview zum Thema Spam ******
// http://www.it-podcast.at/archiv.html#podcast-100716
// Haus zu verkaufen: http://zmi.at/langegg/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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