From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:42:48 -0500 Message-ID: <20120301184248.GC32588@thunk.org> References: <20120229144244.GF5054@shiny> <20120301141823.GV5054@shiny> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Chris Mason , Hillf Danton , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel , LKML , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, lczerner@redhat.com To: Jacek Luczak Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 03:43:41PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote: > > Yep, ext4 is close to my wife's closet. > Were all of the file systems freshly laid down, or was this an aged ext4 file system? Also you should beware that if you have a workload which is heavy parallel I/O, with lots of random, read/write accesses to small files, a benchmark using tar might not be representative of what you will see in production --- different file systems have different strengths and weaknesses --- and the fact that ext3/ext4's readdir() returns inodes in a non-optimal order for stat(2) or unlink(2) or file copy in the cold cache case may not matter as much as you think in a build server. (i.e., the directories that do need to be searched will probably be serviced out of the dentry cache, etc.) Regards, - Ted