[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0808221519000.4532@dhcppc2>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:44:29 +0300 (MET DST)
From: Szabolcs Szakacsits <szaka@...s-3g.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS vs Elevators (was Re: [PATCH RFC] nilfs2: continuous
snapshotting file system)
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 08:33:50PM +0300, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
>
> > The 'nobarrier' mount option made a big improvement:
>
> INteresting. Barriers make only a little difference on my laptop;
> 10-20% slower. But yes, barriers will have this effect on XFS.
>
> If you've got NCQ, then you'd do better to turn off write caching
> on the drive, turn off barriers and use NCQ to give you back the
> performance that the write cache used to. That is, of course,
> assuming the NCQ implementation doesn't suck....
Write cache off, nobarrier and AHCI NCQ lowered the XFS result:
MB/s Runtime (s)
----- -----------
btrfs unstable 17.09 572
ext3 13.24 877
btrfs 0.16 12.33 793
ntfs-3g unstable 11.52 673
nilfs2 2nd+ runs 11.29 674
reiserfs 8.38 966
xfs nobarrier 7.89 949
nilfs2 1st run 4.95 3800
xfs nobarrier, ncq, wc off 3.81 1973
xfs 1.88 3901
Szaka
--
NTFS-3G: http://ntfs-3g.org
--
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