| To: | Szabolcs Illes <S.Illes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: After reboot fs with barrier faster deletes then fs with nobarrier |
| From: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:01:50 +1000 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <op.tuomcyagf7nho5@project1.cpc.wmin.ac.uk> |
| References: | <op.tuldjrzef7nho5@sunset.cpc.wmin.ac.uk> <20070629001648.GD31489@sgi.com> <op.tuomcyagf7nho5@project1.cpc.wmin.ac.uk> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:01:36PM +0100, Szabolcs Illes wrote: > on my desktop pc: > > WCE=1 hot-cache/cold cache nobarrier is faster. same results as I got. After reboot, nobarrier is way slow. > WCE=0 hot-cache/cold-cache is pretty much identical. Same results I got. After reboot, nobarrier is way slow. > for cold cache I used: echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches Same here. > it looks like this machine is only affected after reboot, maybe the hdd > has more cache, then the hdd in my 3 years old laptop. > on my laptop it was enought to clear the kernel cache. > > How did you do your "cold" tests? reboot or drop_caches? drop_caches. So there definitely appears to be something about a reboot that is causing an issue here. I'll see if I can reproduce it here. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 4/7][TAKE5] support new modes in fallocate, Amit K. Arora |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [linux-lvm] 2.6.22-rc5 XFS fails after hibernate/resume, Rafael J. Wysocki |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [linux-lvm] 2.6.22-rc5 XFS fails after hibernate/resume, Tejun Heo |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH][XFS][resend] memory leak; allocated transaction not freed in xfs_inactive_free_eofblocks() in failure case., Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |