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'? [ http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/19/33 ]
>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.
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
