On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 07:49:26AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Bron Gondwana's message of 2010-11-30 04:35:10 -0500:
Do you have any suggestsions for what I could try? You mentioned READ_SYNC
above. We now have one working partition on this machine, but it took
longer
to
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 09:10:08AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Bron Gondwana's message of 2010-11-18 16:46:31 -0500:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:30:47AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
http://pastebin.com/Tg7agv42
Ok, we're mixing unlinks and fsyncs. If it fsyncing directories
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:11:48PM +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote:
Could you sysrq-w while the performance is bad? That would narrow it
down.
Here's one:
http://pastebin.com/Tg7agv42
And here's another one, inline this time. The iostat for 10 seconds
just before said: (iostat -x 10 10
Just posting this again more neatly formatted and just the
'meat':
a) program creates piles of small temporary files, hard
links them out to different directories, unlinks the
originals.
b) filesystem size: ~ 300Gb (backed by hardware RAID5)
c) as the filesystem grows (currently about 30%
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:38:13AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Bron Gondwana's message of 2010-11-16 07:54:45 -0500:
Just posting this again more neatly formatted and just the
'meat':
a) program creates piles of small temporary files, hard
links them out to different
file,
parse it there, then symlink to all the delivery targets before unlinking the
original.
Thanks,
Bron.
--
Bron Gondwana
br...@fastmail.fm
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:01:36PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:09:51PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 08:38:10AM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:21:46PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
I'm sorry but GRUB Legacy
it in production. I.e. they're benchmarking reality.
Sure there are ways that btrfs performance could be improved, but they're not
realistically available to mortals selecting use btrfs for /home in their
Ubuntu Bleeding-Edge Badger release.
Bron.
--
Bron Gondwana
br...@fastmail.fm
--
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 04:58:15PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
Assuming a 4 kbyte block size that would mean for a 1 Tbyte
filesystem:
1Tbyte / 4096 / 8 = 32 Mbyte of memory (this should of course
be saved to disk from time to time and be restored on
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:01:36AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
[...] In my testing
here, the big difference between ext4 and btrfs isn't writing to files,
it is actually the unlinks. If I take them out of the run, btrfs is
very close to ext4 times.
Oh man, what is it with unlinks. Nobody does
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 04:15:43PM -0600, Joe Peterson wrote:
Gerald Nowitzky wrote:
When a HDD drive reads a sector from disk, it does a
whole bunch of error recognition and correction measures. Usually there
are,
at least, two layers of error correction with different bit spreads on
11 matches
Mail list logo
