Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754341AbYHUCNU (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:13:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750801AbYHUCNG (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:13:06 -0400 Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net ([203.16.214.146]:22988 "EHLO ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751143AbYHUCNF (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:13:05 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAAxsrEh5LD0w/2dsb2JhbAC1ZIFZ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,243,1217773800"; d="scan'208";a="175981629" Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:12:59 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Andrew Morton Cc: Szabolcs Szakacsits , konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] nilfs2: continuous snapshotting file system Message-ID: <20080821021259.GA5706@disturbed> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Morton , Szabolcs Szakacsits , konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20080820004326.519405a2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200808201613.AA00212@capsicum.lab.ntt.co.jp> <20080820143916.1a7eddab.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080820143916.1a7eddab.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1491 Lines: 39 On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 02:39:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:25:55 +0300 (MET DST) > Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote: > > I ran compilebench on kernel 2.6.26 with freshly formatted volumes. > > The behavior of NILFS2 was interesting. > > > > Its peformance rapidly degrades to the lowest ever measured level > > (< 1 MB/s) but after a while it recovers and gives consistent numbers. > > However it's still very far from the current unstable btrfs performance. > > The results are reproducible. > > > > MB/s Runtime (s) > > ----- ----------- > > btrfs unstable 17.09 572 > > ext3 13.24 877 > > btrfs 0.16 12.33 793 > > nilfs2 2nd+ runs 11.29 674 > > ntfs-3g 8.55 865 > > reiserfs 8.38 966 > > nilfs2 1st run 4.95 3800 > > xfs 1.88 3901 > > err, what the heck happened to xfs? Is this usual? No, definitely not usual. I suspect it's from an old mkfs and barriers being used. What is the output of the xfs.mkfs when you make the filesystem and what mount options being used? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/