| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:25:58 -0400 From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: filesystem benchmarking fun On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:12:09PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > 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 ] Oddly, xfs fails barriers on this sata drive although the other filesystems don't. But yes, I tried both ways. > > >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 I used mkfs.xfs -l size=128m,version=2 mount -o logbsize=256k,nobarrier > > >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. > Sorry, I'm not entirely clear on what we learn from trying tmpfs? -chris - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists