On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 05:55:45PM +0900, Chris Mason wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:27:33AM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:01:46AM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 09:43:51PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If you're comparing w/ext3 and wondering why btrfs is sooooooo much > > > > > slower it might be because btrfs has barriers on by default and ext3 > > > > > doesn't. You could mount -o nobarrier for btrfs or mount -o barrier=1 > > > > > for ext3 for a proper comparison. > > > > Last update: things got noticably faster with 2.6.31.4-88.fc12.x86_64, > > which contains backport of latest mainline btrfs (thank you, Josef!). > > No more comlains from me (for now ;). > > Fantastic. Are you running with or without barriers now? I stick to default settings, that means barriers I think. Overall, my test hardware is so slow by itself, that barriers are not really noticable. (It's 3 GHz Pentium 4 in 64 bit with single IDE 20GB drive). -- Tomasz Torcz RIP is irrevelant. Spoofing is futile. xmpp: zdzichubg@xxxxxxxxx Your routes will be aggreggated. -- Alex Yuriev -- 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
