Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Speed\s+of\s+rm\s+compared\s+to\s+reiserfs\s+$slow$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Speed\s+of\s+rm\s+compared\s+to\s+reiserfs\s+$slow$\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. 83 - implement generic xfs_btree_rshift (score: 1): Author: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:43:13 +0300; 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 in; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00334.html (11,537 bytes)
2. 985583 - make btree tracing generic (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:27:24 +1000; mount -o logbsize=262144 <dev> <mtpt> BTW, noatime implies nodiratime - you don't ned to specify both. At 1.1T, you probably want to use inode64 for /var. The different allocation strategy of inode32; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00356.html (9,915 bytes)
3. track dquot pincount (score: 1): Author: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:16:35 +0300; I've added it to my mount options, also tried logbufs=8 (but that didn't make much difference). Thanks for the suggestions, the time for rm has improved a bit, but is still slower than reiserfs: time; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00362.html (11,522 bytes)
4. ed to reiserfs (slow) (score: 1): Author: gus3 <musicman529@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:08:26 -0700 (PDT); Others' suggestions stand, but I have found the best way to speed up a journalled filesystem (of any kind) is with an external journal on a separate controller channel. If your XFS journal is interna; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00364.html (9,684 bytes)
5. 64 question (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:54:53 +1000; no; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00384.html (9,713 bytes)
6. rification about NULLs in the file after a crash (score: 1): Author: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:41:27 +0300; fa; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00417.html (11,777 bytes)
7. ement generic xfs_btree_updkey (score: 1): Author: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:43:13 +0300; ile th; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00844.html (11,358 bytes)
8. a crc field to xfs_buf_log_format_t (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:27:24 +1000; xxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00866.html (9,736 bytes)
9. e: TAKE 985583 - make btree tracing generic (score: 1): Author: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:16:35 +0300; , qi_p; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00872.html (11,343 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH v2] Use atomic_t and wait_event to track dquot pincount (score: 1): Author: gus3 <musicman529@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:08:26 -0700 (PDT); "are w; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00874.html (9,505 bytes)
11. og checksumming code with CRCs. (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:54:53 +1000; GFL do no; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00894.html (9,534 bytes)
12. (score: 1): Author: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:41:27 +0300; at was fa; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00927.html (11,598 bytes)
13. Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow) (score: 1): Author: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:43:13 +0300; 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; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg01352.html (11,358 bytes)
14. Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow) (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:27:24 +1000; mount -o logbsize=262144 <dev> <mtpt> BTW, noatime implies nodiratime - you don't ned to specify both. At 1.1T, you probably want to use inode64 for /var. The different allocation strategy of inode32; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg01374.html (9,784 bytes)
15. Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow) (score: 1): Author: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:16:35 +0300; I've added it to my mount options, also tried logbufs=8 (but that didn't make much difference). Thanks for the suggestions, the time for rm has improved a bit, but is still slower than reiserfs: time; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg01380.html (11,483 bytes)
16. Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow) (score: 1): Author: gus3 <musicman529@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:08:26 -0700 (PDT); Others' suggestions stand, but I have found the best way to speed up a journalled filesystem (of any kind) is with an external journal on a separate controller channel. If your XFS journal is interna; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg01382.html (9,529 bytes)
17. Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow) (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:54:53 +1000; Buy more disks. ;) XFS is not really optimised for single disk, metadata intensive, small file workloads. It scales by being able to keep lots of disks busy at the same time. Those algorithms don't m; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg01402.html (9,664 bytes)
18. Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow) (score: 1): Author: Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:41:27 +0300; I have 6 disks, in raid10 :) md4 : active raid10 sda3[0] sdf3[5] sdc3[4] sde3[3] sdd3[2] sdb3[1] 2159617728 blocks 64K chunks 2 near-copies [6/6] [UUUUUU] -- Logical volume -- LV Name /dev/vg-all/lv-; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg01435.html (11,820 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]