[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: filesystem benchmarking fun

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'? [ ]

>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

>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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-16 20:17    [W:0.094 / U:10.812 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site