Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756630Ab0DNSll (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:41:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3370 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756527Ab0DNSlk (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:41:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4BC60C2D.2000002@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:40:45 -0700 From: Ric Wheeler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Fedora/3.0.4-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Chinner CC: Thomas Gleixner , Avi Kivity , Ben Gamari , Andi Kleen , Arjan van de Ven , LKML , tytso@mit.edu, npiggin@suse.de, Ingo Molnar , Ruald Andreae , Jens Axboe , Olly Betts , martin f krafft Subject: Re: Poor interactive performance with I/O loads with fsync()ing References: <4b9fa440.12135e0a.7fc8.ffffe745@mx.google.com> <4baeaee5.c5c2f10a.7187.2688@mx.google.com> <20100327204233.0d84542a@infradead.org> <4baf624c.48c3f10a.16d0.ffffccb8@mx.google.com> <87y6hcyu85.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4bbf401e.a3b9e70a.13f3.4460@mx.google.com> <4BC1E4A4.1070103@redhat.com> <20100412002225.GB2493@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20100412002225.GB2493@dastard> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1949 Lines: 55 On 04/11/2010 05:22 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 08:16:09PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> On 04/09/2010 05:56 PM, Ben Gamari wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:08:58 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ben Gamari writes: >>>>> ext4/XFS/JFS/btrfs should be better in this regard >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I am using btrfs, so yes, I was expecting things to be better. >>>> Unfortunately, >>>> the improvement seems to be non-existent under high IO/fsync load. >>>> >>> btrfs is known to perform poorly under fsync. >>> >> XFS does not do much better. Just moved my VM images back to ext for >> that reason. >> > Numbers? Workload description? Mount options? I hate it when all I > hear is "XFS sucked, so I went back to extN" reports without any > more details - it's hard to improve anything without any details > of the problems. > > Also worth remembering is that XFS defaults to slow-but-safe > options, but ext3 defaults to fast-and-I-don't-give-a-damn-about- > data-safety, so there's a world of difference between the > filesystem defaults.... > > And FWIW, I run all my VMs on XFS using default mkfs and mount options, > and I can't say that I've noticed any performance problems at all > despite hammering the IO subsystems all the time. The only thing > I've ever done is occasionally run xfs_fsr across permanent qcow2 > VM images to defrag them as the grow slowly over time... > > Cheers, > > Dave. > And if you are asking for details, the type of storage you use is also quite interesting. Thanks! Ric -- 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/