On 2015-06-15 10:44, Tovo Rabemanantsoa wrote:
On 06/15/2015 03:29 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 02:47:24PM +0200, Tovo Rabemanantsoa wrote:
Hi all,
By browsing this list's archive, I've found a thread initiated by
Charles Cazabon entitled: "Oddly slow read performance with near-full
largish FS."
Actually, I'm living the same experience but with a not so large FS
(256GB on a SSD). Indeed, when I have less than 1GB of free space, the
applications (thunderbird, thunar ...) on the machine become awfully
slow but remain normal if I make some cleaning.
Is it due to the FS or because it's an SSD hard disk ?

1G of 256G is less than a percent. At this level of usage you can expect
slowdown on any filesystem.

This could be caused by free space fragmentation and even on a SSD, this
needs extra time to process.  Higher number of fragments needs more
structures to represent them and cost more CPU time, though this still
might not be the worst impact.

AFAIK btrfs space handling logic needs to do more flushes of unwritten
data when the accounted free space goes below some threshold (because
COW needs to write the data twice before it switches to the new "root"
pointer and can free the previous version).

Thanks for you reply,
If I really understand, it's always a good idea to keep more than 1% of
free space. Right ?
For almost any non-COW filesystem (ext4, XFS, JFS, etc.), 1% or 100MB (whichever is larger) is generally a good buffer. On BTRFS, I would say at least 5% or 1.5G (again, whichever is larger; and if performance is a concern, go for at least 10-20%), as BTRFS is known to have some rather poor behavior when running very close to full.


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to