[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100718071508.GA6952@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 03:15:08 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Giangiacomo Mariotti <gg.mariotti@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BTRFS: Unbelievably slow with kvm/qemu
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 06:28:06AM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> Thanks so much for running these benchmarks. It's been on my todo
> list ever since the original complaint came across on the linux-ext4
> list, but I just haven't had time to do the investigation. I wonder
> exactly what qemu is doing which is impact btrfs in particularly so
> badly. I assume that using the qcow2 format with cache=writethrough,
> it's doing lots of effectively file appends whih require allocation
> (or conversion of uninitialized preallocated blocks to initialized
> blocks in the fs metadata) with lots of fsync()'s afterwards.
This is using raw images. So what we're doing there is hole filling.
No explicit fsyncs are done for cache=writethrough. cache=writethrough
translates to using O_DSYNC, which makes every write synchronous, which
these days translates to an implicity ->fsync call on every write.
> P.S. I assume since you listed "sparse" that you were using a raw
> disk and not a qcom2 block device image?
All of these are using raw images. sparse means just doing a truncate
to the image size, preallocated means using fallocate to pre-allocate
the space.
--
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