On 4/3/07, Philipp Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Phil!
Hi Phil,
On Dienstag, 3. April 2007 euvitudo wrote: > Well, as I wrote to Phil just a minute ago, the issue was my use and > configuration of ext3. Converting to reiserfs made a lot of difference, Do you have dir-index set on the filesystem?
I recreated the filesystem (mkfs.ext3 takes a while!), and think I found the main problem. I did have dir_index set, but I had journal_data, which is the aggressive journaling for ext3 (journal metadata + data, then commit to disk), which has the biggest performance hit. For more info, I used: mkfs.ext3 -O dir_index,has_journal /dev/sda1 then I used tune2fs (not sure if this makes a difference): tune2fs -O dir_index,has_journal -o journal_data_ordered /dev/sda1 then my mount options are (thanks to an Ubuntu forum archive; just found the link: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=107856 ; a bit old, but still relevant): /dev/sda1 /mnt/lacie ext3 \ defaults,errors=remount-ro,noatime,noauto,rw,user,data=ordered 0 1 I actually found this to be rather comparable to reiserfs for small files. One benefit I saw was that large files were committed a lot faster with ext3 than with reiserfs. For my configuration (Laptop P4-2.2GHz, USB-2 LaCie drive, svn-fsfs), my non-scientific results showed that large files were written at about 58GB per minute, while small files (mixed with some large files--it was an MH formatted email box) were written at about 30GB per minute. This seems reasonable, given that there is a known performance hit for small files on ext3.
> due to the small file issue (including the all the md5s files that fsvs is > writing). Well, it should keep them only for files > 128kB. Do you have so many of them? So many that it makes a real difference?
In the end, I don't think these files had any effect.
> > > Once it reached 2GB, there was an access problem, and > > As Philipp wrote, this is probably caused by apr libs without large file > > support, I also had this problem once on an older installation. > > I'm a bit confused, however, as you use pretty recent versions, I'd had > > imagined that large file support would have been enabled by default for > > some time now... > Yeah, I don't quite understand this, as Gentoo doesn't have the large file > support disabled. If you find out what the problem is, I'd be very interested - that should go into the FAQ.
So, I would like to try committing >2GB, as well as perform the same tests for a bdb-configured svn, but that will have to wait until tomorrow evening (my time). Now I'm not quite as sure as I stated in my previous email that I'll go back to reiserfs. ;^) Anyway, please accept my apologies for the initial complaint. It really was an ext3 configuration issue on my part. On the other hand, I hope the above information might be useful to others. Cheers, Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
