On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:12:09PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On May 16 2007 10:42, Chris Mason wrote: > > > >For example, I'll pick on xfs for a minute. compilebench shows the > >default FS you get from mkfs.xfs is pretty slow for untarring a bunch of > >kernel trees. > > I suppose you used 'nobarrier'? [ http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/19/33 ]
Oddly, xfs fails barriers on this sata drive although the other filesystems don't. But yes, I tried both ways. > > >Dave Chinner gave me some mount options that make it > >dramatically better, > > and `mkfs.xfs -l version=2` is also said to make it better I used mkfs.xfs -l size=128m,version=2 mount -o logbsize=256k,nobarrier > > >but it still writes at 10MB/s on a sata drive that > >can do 80MB/s. Ext3 is better, but still only 20MB/s. > > > >Both are presumably picking a reasonable file and directory layout. > >Still, our writeback algorithms are clearly not optimized for this kind > >of workload. Should we fix it? > > Also try with tmpfs. > Sorry, I'm not entirely clear on what we learn from trying tmpfs? -chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
