From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postfix1-g20.free.fr (postfix1-g20.free.fr [212.27.60.42]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l9DIAOpt006509 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:10:26 -0700 Received: from smtp7-g19.free.fr (smtp7-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.64]) by postfix1-g20.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 537B81B93167 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:10:25 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:10:15 +0200 From: Emmanuel Florac Subject: Re: Latencies in XFS. Message-ID: <20071013201015.4a8008bb@galadriel.home> In-Reply-To: <20071009163635.413dec0c@zeus.pccl.info> References: <20071009163635.413dec0c@zeus.pccl.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Andrew Clayton , xfs@oss.sgi.com Le Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:36:35 +0100 vous écriviez: > I think I have narrowed it down to XFS. I notice you use a bleeding-edge unstable kernel, with a whole new scheduler. I tried your benchmark on a machine running a known stable kernel (2.6.20.17) and the slowdown is similar in xfs and other fs. As a side note, I personnally wouldn't choose xfs for desktop users home directories (email,web, etc) because it's much better at pure throughput and quite slower at IOPS than other FSes. Reiserfs is the best of the common FSes for this. I'm quite surprised that apparently your production system is running a prerelease kernel. Why? -- -------------------------------------------------- Emmanuel Florac www.intellique.com --------------------------------------------------