On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 09:33 -0700, Anupam Garg wrote: > I'm trying to do some incremental product builds on btrfs. > My general workflow is: > > for CLN in CHANGES: > (1) sync CLN in /btrfs/current > (2) build > (3) if btrfs_with_snapshots: snap to /btrfs/CLN > > I tried 3 ways: > ext3 as baseline, > btrfs w/o snapshots, > btrfs with snapshots > > And, when doing so, I get the following results (for 20 changes) -- > all data in seconds: > > build#, ext3, btrfs_nosnap, btrfs_snap: > 1, 1984.255, 2005.833, 1992.125 > 2, 352.53, 357.485, 359.08 > 3, 633.742, 633.571, 635.809 > 4, 380.11, 378.361, 380.067 > 5, 348.578, 354.401, 357.166 > 6, 344.705, 354.659, 358.569 > 7, 349.883, 357.084, 356.666 > 8, 584.673, 594.489, 596.34 > 9, 348.868, 356.776, 375.165 > 10, 503.824, 605.733, 630.257 > 11, 364.995, 359.486, 379.509 > 12, 383.263, 391.045, 408.491 > 13, 356.672, 361.065, 404.367 > 14, 352.583, 360.526, 431.902 > 15, 468.299, 501.173, 1046.198 > 16, 344.414, 356.123, 467.744 > 17, 353.368, 373.99, 646.753 > 18, 352.07, 364.163, 546.776 > 19., 355.426, 376.69, 995.996 > 20, 356.816, 390.882, 1700.374 > > So, btrfs without snaps and ext3 are fairly close. However, btrfs with > snapshots has increasing degradation in build performance. > The initial build time is high because it is a fresh sync and full > build. > Is this a source base that I can try to reproduce these performance problems with? The first question would be why were the slower runs slower? I'm assuming they need to read more off the disk, but capturing vmstat output during the fast and slow btrfs runs would help. -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
