[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100902001859.GA4930@thunk.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 20:18:59 -0400
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: "K. Richard Pixley" <rich@...r.com>
Cc: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@...efedyk.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>,
Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...g.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, gg.mariotti@...il.com,
"Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>, mjt@....msk.ru
Subject: Re: BTRFS: Unbelievably slow with kvm/qemu
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 02:58:44PM -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
> On 20100831 14:46, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> >There is little reason not to use duplicate metadata. Only small
> >files (less than 2kb) get stored in the tree, so there should be no
> >worries about images being duplicated without data duplication set at
> >mkfs time.
> My benchmarks show that for my kinds of data, btrfs is somewhat
> slower than ext4, (which is slightly slower than ext3 which is
> somewhat slower than ext2), when using the defaults, (ie, duplicate
> metadata).
>
> It's a hair faster than ext2, (the fastest of the ext family), when
> using singleton metadata. And ext2 isn't even crash resistant while
> btrfs has snapshots.
I'm really, really curious. Can you describe your data and your
workload in detail? You mentioned "continuous builders"; is this some
kind of tinderbox setup?
- Ted
--
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