Re: getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance
- Subject: Re: getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance
- From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:42:44 -0500
- Cc: linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <CADDYkjRYrKaBvTQ4Pe6bfemL7r5W=AU468uy0krFAEJD45syow@mail.gmail.com>
- Mail-followup-to: Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 03:07:45PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
[ btrfs faster than ext for find and cp -a ]
> 2012/2/29 Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> I will try to answer the question from the broken email I've sent.
>
> @Lukas, it was always a fresh FS on top of LVM logical volume. I've
> been cleaning cache/remounting to sync all data before (re)doing
> tests.
The next step is to get cp -a out of the picture, in this case you're
benchmarking both the read speed and the write speed (what are you
copying to btw?).
Using tar cf /dev/zero <some_dir> is one way to get a consistent picture
of the read speed.
You can confirm the theory that it is directory order causing problems
by using acp to read the data.
http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/acp/acp-0.6.tar.bz2
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Linux NFS]
[Linux NILFS]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Video for Linux]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Photo]
[Yosemite News]
[Yosemite Photos]
[Free Online Dating]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux SCSI]
[XFree86]