linux-kernel - Re: filesystem benchmarking fun

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: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0705162010370.9019@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2007 20:12:09 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: filesystem benchmarking fun


On May 16 2007 10:42, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>For example, I'll pick on xfs for a minute.  compilebench shows the
>default FS you get from mkfs.xfs is pretty slow for untarring a bunch of
>kernel trees.

I suppose you used 'nobarrier'? [ http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/19/33 ]

>Dave Chinner gave me some mount options that make it
>dramatically better,

and `mkfs.xfs -l version=2` is also said to make it better

>but it still writes at 10MB/s on a sata drive that
>can do 80MB/s.  Ext3 is better, but still only 20MB/s. 
>
>Both are presumably picking a reasonable file and directory layout.
>Still, our writeback algorithms are clearly not optimized for this kind
>of workload.  Should we fix it?

Also try with tmpfs.



	Jan
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/