Chris Mason wrote: > checksumming (which is constant for creating the file and for random > writes) and the second is the cost of maintaining back references for > the file data extent. > > In btrfs, we track the owners of each extent, which makes repair, volume > management and other things much easier. Small random writes make for a > lot of extents, and so they also make for a lot of tracking. > I've no problem with high cpu load on dedicated storage servers, but it does not seems right for desktop usage. Please correct me if i'm wrong. Alex > In general, you'll find that mount -o ssd will be faster here, just > because it forces the allocator into more sequential allocations for > this workload. > > You'll find that mount -o nodatacow uses much less CPU time, but this > disables checksumming and a few other advanced features. > > -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
