linux-kernel - xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1430334326.7360.25.camel@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:05:26 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	tux3@...3.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Subject: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent
 performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

Here's something that _might_ interest xfs folks.

cd git (source repository of git itself)
make clean
echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
time make -j8 test

ext4    2m20.721s
xfs     6m41.887s <-- ick
btrfs   1m32.038s
tux3    1m30.262s

Testing by Aunt Tilly: mkfs, no fancy switches, mount the thing, test.

Are defaults for mkfs.xfs such that nobody sane uses them, or does xfs
really hate whatever git selftests are doing this much?

	-Mike


--
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/