On 5 May 2010, at 15:05, Andrew Reid wrote: > Stroller wrote: >> Ou of curiosity, is there a reason you didn't do >> `time dd if=/dev/zero of=zero.txt bs=1024 count=1000000 && time rm >> zero.txt` ? > > Simple reason, insufficient caffiene; I copy and pasted the command > line > I used to test the commnad and then partially editted it to use the > OP's file name.
I wasn't replying to you, but the OP. :P I was asking HIM why he did it that way. I had already started writing my reply when your message arrived. > On an xfs filessystem this gives: XFS doesn't have the notorious slow-deletes problem of ext3, though. From my tests: ext3 (c 700mhz Pentium III): $ time dd if=/dev/zero of=zero.txt bs=1024 count=1000000 && time rm -f zero.txt 1000000+0 records in 1000000+0 records out real 0m37.564s user 0m0.820s sys 0m24.280s real 0m2.266s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.150s $ ext4 (c 2.4ghz Pentium 4, 3ware RAID controller): $ time dd if=/dev/zero of=zero.txt bs=1024 count=1000000 && time rm zero.txt 1000000+0 records in 1000000+0 records out 1024000000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 187.476 s, 5.5 MB/s real 3m7.512s user 0m1.534s sys 0m33.121s real 0m3.221s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.941s $ These are difference machines, but it looks to me like the ext3 machine is a chunk slower (relatively) at the deletion than the ext4 machine. However, the delete is still faster than the write, so I guess this isn't the root of John's problem. I haven't messed with the caches thing, because I don't understand filesystem performance enough to pretend to be able to benchmark with a great deal of accuracy. Maybe I'll have to learn about that one day, but right now I don't really care. Stroller. _______________________________________________ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list [email protected] https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
