[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1218763554.15342.460.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:25:54 -0400
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Btrfs v0.16 released
On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 23:17 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 05:00:56PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Btrfs defaults 57.41 MB/s
Looks like I can get the btrfs defaults up to 64MB/s with some writeback
tweaks.
> > Btrfs dup no csum 74.59 MB/s
>
> With duplications checksums seem to be quite costly (CPU bound?)
>
The async worker threads should be spreading the load across CPUs pretty
well, and even a single CPU could keep up with 100MB/s checksumming.
But, the async worker threads do randomize the IO somewhat because the
IO goes from pdflush -> one worker thread per CPU -> submit_bio. So,
maybe that 3rd thread is more than the drive can handle?
btrfsck tells me the total size of the btree is only 20MB larger with
checksumming on.
> > Btrfs no duplication 76.83 MB/s
> > Btrfs no dup no csum no inline 76.85 MB/s
>
> But without duplication they are basically free here at least
> in IO rate. Seems odd?
>
> Does it compute them twice in the duplication case perhaps?
>
The duplication happens lower down in the stack, they only get done
once.
-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