Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?) | Date | Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:12:56 -0700 |
| |
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:05:26 PM PDT, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Here's something that _might_ interest xfs folks. > > cd git (source repository of git itself) > make clean > echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches > time make -j8 test > > ext4 2m20.721s > xfs 6m41.887s <-- ick > btrfs 1m32.038s > tux3 1m30.262s > > Testing by Aunt Tilly: mkfs, no fancy switches, mount the thing, test. > > Are defaults for mkfs.xfs such that nobody sane uses them, or does xfs > really hate whatever git selftests are doing this much?
I'm more interested in the fact that we eked out a win :)
Btrfs appears to optimize tiny files by storing them in its big btree, the equivalent of our itree, and Tux3 doesn't do that yet, so we are a bit hobbled for a make load. Eventually, that gap should widen.
The pattern I noticed where the write-anywhere designs are beating the journal designs seems to continue here. I am sure there are exceptions, but maybe it is a real thing.
Regards,
Daniel
| |