From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754404Ab1A1Bg3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:36:29 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:26892 "EHLO ironport2-out.pppoe.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752715Ab1A1Bg2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:36:28 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIBAMesQU1Ld/sX/2dsb2JhbAAMhAjNIJBcgSODOHQEhRc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,388,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="89495020" Message-ID: <4D421D9A.50007@teksavvy.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:36:26 -0500 From: Mark Lord User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Chinner CC: Stan Hoeppner , Justin Piszcz , Christoph Hellwig , Alex Elder , Linux Kernel , xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount References: <4D40C8D1.8090202@teksavvy.com> <20110127033011.GH21311@dastard> <4D40EB2F.2050809@teksavvy.com> <4D418B57.1000501@teksavvy.com> <4D419765.4070805@teksavvy.com> <4D41CA16.8070001@hardwarefreak.com> <4D41EA04.7010506@teksavvy.com> <20110128001735.GO21311@dastard> <4D421A68.9000607@teksavvy.com> In-Reply-To: <4D421A68.9000607@teksavvy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11-01-27 08:22 PM, Mark Lord wrote: > On 11-01-27 07:17 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >> >> In my experience with XFS, most people who tweak mkfs parameters end >> up with some kind of problem they can't explain and don't know how >> to solve. And they are typically problems that would not have >> occurred had they simply used the defaults in the first place. What >> you've done is a perfect example of this. > > Maybe. But what I read from the paragraph above, > is that the documentation could perhaps explain things better, > and then people other than the coders might understand how > best to tweak it. By the way, the documentation is excellent, for a developer who wants to work on the codebase. It describes the data structures and layouts etc.. better than perhaps any other Linux filesystem. But it doesn't seem to describe the algorithms, such as how it decides where to store a recording stream. I'm not complaining, far from it. XFS is simply wonderful, and my DVR literally couldn't work without it. But I am as technical as you are, and I like to experiment and understand the technology I use. That's partly why we both work on the Linux kernel. Cheers From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p0S1Y3Ix070510 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:34:03 -0600 Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 53542297CB6 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:36:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.183]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 4sjProDprcrHE9V7 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:36:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D421D9A.50007@teksavvy.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:36:26 -0500 From: Mark Lord MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount References: <4D40C8D1.8090202@teksavvy.com> <20110127033011.GH21311@dastard> <4D40EB2F.2050809@teksavvy.com> <4D418B57.1000501@teksavvy.com> <4D419765.4070805@teksavvy.com> <4D41CA16.8070001@hardwarefreak.com> <4D41EA04.7010506@teksavvy.com> <20110128001735.GO21311@dastard> <4D421A68.9000607@teksavvy.com> In-Reply-To: <4D421A68.9000607@teksavvy.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Linux Kernel , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Christoph Hellwig , Justin Piszcz , Alex Elder , Stan Hoeppner On 11-01-27 08:22 PM, Mark Lord wrote: > On 11-01-27 07:17 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >> >> In my experience with XFS, most people who tweak mkfs parameters end >> up with some kind of problem they can't explain and don't know how >> to solve. And they are typically problems that would not have >> occurred had they simply used the defaults in the first place. What >> you've done is a perfect example of this. > > Maybe. But what I read from the paragraph above, > is that the documentation could perhaps explain things better, > and then people other than the coders might understand how > best to tweak it. By the way, the documentation is excellent, for a developer who wants to work on the codebase. It describes the data structures and layouts etc.. better than perhaps any other Linux filesystem. But it doesn't seem to describe the algorithms, such as how it decides where to store a recording stream. I'm not complaining, far from it. XFS is simply wonderful, and my DVR literally couldn't work without it. But I am as technical as you are, and I like to experiment and understand the technology I use. That's partly why we both work on the Linux kernel. Cheers _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs