btrfs hash algorithm (should xxhash be the default?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On my Intel i7 laptop, xxhash is a small but clear performance win over
crc32c:

    $ ./hash-speedtest  10000000
    Block size:     4096
    Iterations:     10000000
    Implementation: builtin

        NULL-NOP: cycles:   1372543560, c/i      137
     NULL-MEMCPY: cycles:   2844174884, c/i      284
          CRC32C: cycles:   9673117404, c/i      967
          XXHASH: cycles:   7129819594, c/i      712
          SHA256: cycles: 649914613520, c/i    64991
         BLAKE2b: cycles: 153513008046, c/i    15351


And I'm given to understand that this is even more the case on newer CPUs.

Plus, it's 64 bit instead of 32 bit. The 256-bit algorithms are obviously
much, much slower and probably not right for a default, but should we
consider making xxhash the default for Fedora Linux systems with btrfs?

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux