lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: XFS vs Elevators (was Re: [PATCH RFC] nilfs2: continuous snapshotting file system)
    ----- Original Message ----

    > From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
    > To: Szabolcs Szakacsits <szaka@ntfs-3g.org>; Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; xfs@oss.sgi.com
    > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 10:25:32 AM
    > Subject: Re: XFS vs Elevators (was Re: [PATCH RFC] nilfs2: continuous snapshotting file system)
    >
    > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 04:04:18PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
    > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 03:15:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
    > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 05:46:00AM +0300, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
    > > > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Dave Chinner wrote:
    > > > > Everything is default.
    > > > >
    > > > > % rpm -qf =mkfs.xfs
    > > > > xfsprogs-2.9.8-7.1
    > > > >
    > > > > which, according to ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/cmd_tars, is the
    > > > > latest stable mkfs.xfs. Its output is
    > > > >
    > > > > meta-data=/dev/sda8 isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=1221440
    > blks
    > > > > = sectsz=512 attr=2
    > > > > data = bsize=4096 blocks=4885760, imaxpct=25
    > > > > = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks
    > > > > naming =version 2 bsize=4096
    > > > > log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=2560, version=2
    > > > > = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=0
    > > > > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
    > > >
    > > > Ok, I thought it might be the tiny log, but it didn't improve anything
    > > > here when increased the log size, or the log buffer size.
    > >
    > > One thing I just found out - my old *laptop* is 4-5x faster than the
    > > 10krpm scsi disk behind an old cciss raid controller. I'm wondering
    > > if the long delays in dispatch is caused by an interaction with CTQ
    > > but I can't change it on the cciss raid controllers. Are you using
    > > ctq/ncq on your machine? If so, can you reduce the depth to
    > > something less than 4 and see what difference that makes?
    >
    > Just to point out - this is not a new problem - I can reproduce
    > it on 2.6.24 as well as 2.6.26. Likewise, my laptop shows XFS
    > being faster than ext3 on both 2.6.24 and 2.6.26. So the difference
    > is something related to the disk subsystem on the server....
    >
    Hi Dave,

    just curious - which CCISS controller and and what kind of disk configuration are you using.

    Cheers
    Martin



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-21 13:15    [W:5.163 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site