Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:40:45 -0700 | From | Ric Wheeler <> | Subject | Re: Poor interactive performance with I/O loads with fsync()ing |
| |
On 04/11/2010 05:22 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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<andi@firstfloor.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ben Gamari<bgamari.foss@gmail.com> 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... > > Cheers, > > Dave. >
And if you are asking for details, the type of storage you use is also quite interesting.
Thanks!
Ric
| |