xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs)

from [Andi Kleen] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs)
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:24:01 -0700
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130815002436.GI6023@dastard>
References: <520BB9EF.5020308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130815002436.GI6023@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 
> And FWIW, it's no secret that XFS has more per-operation overhead
> than ext4 through the write path when it comes to allocation, so
> it's no surprise that on a workload that is highly dependent on
> allocation overhead that ext4 is a bit faster....

This cannot explain a worse scaling curve though?

w-i-s is all about scaling.

-Andi
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs), Dave Chinner
Next by Date:  [PATCH] xfs_repair: zero out unused parts of superblocks, Eric Sandeen
Previous by Thread:  Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs), Dave Chinner
Next by Thread:  Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs), Dave Chinner
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]