All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
To: Thomas Kaehn <tk@westend.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Strange delete performance using XFS
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:29:46 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704040928110.7309@p34.internal.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070404130535.GE18320@mail3b.westend.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 2459 bytes --]



On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Thomas Kaehn wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've got a strange problem on one machine using XFS. Deleting large
> directories (containing about 100000 files, 20k each) using "rm -rf"
> lasts nearly as long as creating the the files using a bash loop.
>
> The machine is running Debian Sarge with a vanilla 2.6.20.3 kernel.
> CPU: Dual Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20GHz
> RAM: 4 GB
> RAID10: 4x 320 GB disks connected to 3ware 9550SXU-8LP
> (Firmware Version = FE9X 3.08.00.004)
>
> The XFS was first created using default options and later on with
> "-d su=64k,sw=2 -l su=64k" which improved overall performance
> but not delete performance.
>
> Has anyone realized similar effects? On a different server (Dell 6850)
> the directory can be deleted within seconds. What could be the reason
> for the huge difference in delete performance?
>
> Please see below for "time" output.
>
> | # time for i in `seq 1 100000`; do dd if=/dev/zero of=$i bs=1k count=20 >/dev/null 2>&1; done
> |
> | real    6m6.814s
> | user    0m30.290s
> | sys     2m42.562s
> | # time rm -rf y
> |
> | real    5m18.034s
> | user    0m0.036s
> | sys     0m8.169s
>
> In contrast to this the result on the Dell machine looks more
> reasonable:
>
> | # time for i in `seq 1 100000`; do dd if=/dev/zero of=$i bs=1k count=20 >/dev/null 2>&1; done
> |
> | real    9m26.658s
> | user    0m24.134s
> | sys     3m3.623s
> | # time rm -rf x
> |
> | real    0m10.254s
> | user    0m0.124s
> | sys     0m10.105s
>
> Ciao,
> Thomas
>
> PS: Using JFS and ext3 it is also possible to delete the above directory
> in a couple of seconds. Only XFS seems problematic in this regard on
> this system.
> -- 
> Thomas Kähn                   WESTEND GmbH  |  Internet-Business-Provider
> Technik                       CISCO Systems Partner - Authorized Reseller
>                              Im Süsterfeld 6          Tel 0241/701333-18
> tk@westend.com                D-52072 Aachen              Fax 0241/911879
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Die Gesellschaft ist eingetragen im Handelsregister Aachen unter HRB 7608
> Geschäftsführer:           Thomas Neugebauer, Thomas Heller, Michael Kolb
>
>

Deletes on XFS is one area that is a little slower than other filesystems. 
You can increase the log size during the creation of the filesystem and 
also increase logbufs to 8 and that might help.

  reply	other threads:[~2007-04-04 13:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-04-04 13:05 Strange delete performance using XFS Thomas Kaehn
2007-04-04 13:29 ` Justin Piszcz [this message]
2007-04-04 13:47   ` Thomas Kaehn
2007-04-04 13:51     ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-04 13:57       ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-04 13:57     ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-04 14:12       ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-04 14:21         ` Thomas Kaehn
2007-04-04 14:24           ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-04 14:35             ` Thomas Kaehn
2007-04-04 20:45               ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-04 14:13       ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-05  8:17         ` Thomas Kaehn
2007-04-04 18:36     ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-05  7:37       ` Thomas Kaehn
2007-04-04 15:45 ` Chris Wedgwood
2007-04-05  7:28   ` Thomas Kaehn
2007-04-05  9:03     ` Thomas Kaehn
2007-04-05 10:21       ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-05 10:50         ` Thomas Kaehn
2007-04-05 11:11           ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-05 15:29     ` Chris Wedgwood
2007-04-06 19:02       ` Peter Grandi
2007-04-11  9:36         ` Thomas Kaehn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0704040928110.7309@p34.internal.lan \
    --to=jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com \
    --cc=tk@westend.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.