[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Poor interactive performance with I/O loads with fsync()ing
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > XFS does not do much better. Just moved my VM images back to ext for
> > that reason.
> Did you move from XFS to ext3? ext3 defaults to barriers off, XFS on,
> which can make a big difference depending on the disk. You can
> disable them on XFS too of course, with the known drawbacks.
> XFS also typically needs some tuning to get reasonable log sizes.
> My point was merely (before people chime in with counter examples)
> that XFS/btrfs/jfs don't suffer from the "need to sync all transactions for
> every fsync" issue. There can (and will be) still other issues.

Yes, I moved them back from XFS to ext3 simply because moving them
from ext3 to XFS turned out to be a completely unusable disaster.

I know that I can tweak knobs on XFS (or any other file system), but I
would not have expected that it sucks that much for KVM with the
default settings which are perfectly fine for the other use cases
which made us move to XFS.



 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-11 23:59    [W:0.064 / U:2.236 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site