Re: btrfs-transaction blocked for more than 120 seconds

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Jan 5, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> On Jan 5, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Brendan Hide <brendan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> WD Greens (Reds too, for that matter) have poor non-sequential performance. An educated guess I'd say there's a 15% chance this is a major factor to the problem and, perhaps, a 60% chance it is merely a "small contributor" to the problem. Greens are aimed at consumers wanting high capacity and a low pricepoint. The result is poor performance. See footnote * re my experience.
>> 
>> My general recommendation (use cases vary of course) is to install a tiny SSD (60GB, for example) just for the OS. It is typically cheaper than the larger drives and will be *much* faster. WD Greens and Reds have good *sequential* throughput but comparatively abysmal random throughput even in comparison to regular non-SSD consumer drives.
> 
> 
> Another thing with md raid and parallel flie systems that's been an issue is cqf.

Oops, CFQ!

Chris Murphy

--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux