From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.aaisp.net.uk (smtp.aaisp.net.uk [81.187.81.51]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l9E0NNQ3030253 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:23:24 -0700 Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:23:23 +0100 From: Andrew Clayton Subject: Re: Latencies in XFS. Message-ID: <20071014012323.1d6c9e8e@alpha.digital-domain.net> In-Reply-To: <20071013201015.4a8008bb@galadriel.home> References: <20071009163635.413dec0c@zeus.pccl.info> <20071013201015.4a8008bb@galadriel.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Emmanuel Florac Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:10:15 +0200, Emmanuel Florac wrote: > 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. I don't see the slowdown in ext3. > 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? Actually it's now running 2.6.23