[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow)

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow)
From: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:16:35 +0300
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J0TspeAsx/r8Z+24R1cJGX0C2KM318ZO9SGktDAPGXg=; b=DuDaptfiU3ZW4PaEkyNTxBzPaGhYgdlvTLQzGT/mYiN0uqq8JH7PjDJJFiJIjs0pxD mxUTsq6QQbxv+DxoJchSwZ+2pwFI1fuuUOdsplKKEYo+U8wAKsPhSh4OTuPzX6lNfjhV rB4I9EHt52Wp7YwseGDC4qCLcjakdvkW9p5lI=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=wvg7ntuZXlMcd8o8kKquSbziDjCRmUItxzYbkJssWIrND2/3gEWMiYyWv50Tv7fSAz N/eumWJ+p6iwO2SjP0paPUk/PQ0eguPzvzh+P7qqho9Hve8QV9i7dfPyBDjLtpKZY4+A UgPL3Se5+QM7SrqCbV1gGjhCU6+1PCSiskNbw=
In-reply-to: <20080925002724.GA27997@disturbed>
References: <48D9FDA1.8050701@xxxxxxxxx> <20080925002724.GA27997@disturbed>
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20080724)
On 2008-09-25 03:27, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:43:13AM +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I am happily using xfs for /var, /usr and /, and I am very pleased with
>> the read speed.
>> I've just recommended xfs to a friend, and he complained about the speed
>> of rm.
>> I did a test on my box, and indeed the speed of rm is order of magnitude
>> slower compared to reiserfs.
>> I already use lazy-count, and noatime/nodiratime. Write barriers are off
>> because I run on raid10.
>> Is there anything else I can tune to get faster rm speed?
> mount -o logbsize=262144 <dev> <mtpt>

I've added it to my mount options, also tried logbufs=8 (but that didn't
make much difference).

>> # mount | grep var
>> /dev/mapper/vg--all-lv--var on /var type xfs (rw,noatime,nodiratime)
> BTW, noatime implies nodiratime - you don't ned to specify both.
>> tmpfs                 2.0G   12K  2.0G   1% /lib/init/rw
>> udev                   10M  188K  9.9M   2% /dev
>> tmpfs                 2.0G     0  2.0G   0% /dev/shm
>> /dev/mapper/vg--all-lv--usr
>>                       100G  5.3G   95G   6% /usr
>> /dev/mapper/vg--all-lv--var
>>                       1.3T  230G  1.1T  18% /var
> At 1.1T, you probably want to use inode64 for /var. The different
> allocation strategy of inode32 can be substantially slower than
> inode64.

Thanks for the suggestions, the time for rm has improved a bit, but is
still slower than reiserfs:

time rm -rf gcc

real    1m18.818s
user    0m0.156s
sys     0m11.777s

Is there anything else I can try to make it faster?

Best regards,

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>