[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [12]   [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, Apr 11, 2010 at 08:16:09PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Apr 2010, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > > On 04/09/2010 05:56 PM, Ben Gamari wrote:
    > > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:08:58 +0200, Andi Kleen<> wrote:
    > > > > Ben Gamari<> writes:
    > > > > ext4/XFS/JFS/btrfs should be better in this regard
    > > > >
    > > > I am using btrfs, so yes, I was expecting things to be better.
    > > > Unfortunately,
    > > > the improvement seems to be non-existent under high IO/fsync load.
    > >
    > > btrfs is known to perform poorly under fsync.
    > XFS does not do much better. Just moved my VM images back to ext for
    > that reason.

    Numbers? Workload description? Mount options? I hate it when all I
    hear is "XFS sucked, so I went back to extN" reports without any
    more details - it's hard to improve anything without any details
    of the problems.

    Also worth remembering is that XFS defaults to slow-but-safe
    options, but ext3 defaults to fast-and-I-don't-give-a-damn-about-
    data-safety, so there's a world of difference between the
    filesystem defaults....

    And FWIW, I run all my VMs on XFS using default mkfs and mount options,
    and I can't say that I've noticed any performance problems at all
    despite hammering the IO subsystems all the time. The only thing
    I've ever done is occasionally run xfs_fsr across permanent qcow2
    VM images to defrag them as the grow slowly over time...


    Dave Chinner

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-04-13 03:25    [W:0.024 / U:15.916 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site