linux-ext4 - Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1188457666.24970.94.camel@edge.yarra.acx>
Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:07:46 +1000
From:	Nathan Scott <nscott@...nex.com>
To:	"Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker@....org>
Cc:	zfs-discuss@...nsolaris.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 23:16 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> ...  xfs has great
> sequential transfer but really bad metadata ops, like 3 minutes to tar
> up the kernel. 

Perhaps this is due to the write barrier support - would be interesting
to try a run with the "-o nobarrier" mount option to XFS.  With external
logs, write barriers are automatically disabled, which may explain:
 "Oddly XFS has better sequential reads when using an external journal,
 which makes little sense."

To improve metadata performance, you have many options with XFS (which
ones are useful depends on the type of metadata workload) - you can try
a v2 format log, and mount with "-o logbsize=256k", try increasing the
directory block size (e.g. mkfs.xfs -nsize=16k, etc), and also the log
size (mkfs.xfs -lsize=XXXXXXb).

Have fun!

cheers.

--
Nathan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html