On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 11:11:53PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 09.06.2010 11:47, Dave Chinner wrote: > >On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 10:43:37AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > >>09.06.2010 03:18, Dave Chinner wrote: > >>>On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 12:34:00AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > >>[] > >>>>Simple test doing random reads or writes of 4k blocks in a 1Gb > >>>>file located on an xfs filesystem, Mb/sec: > >>>> > >>>> sync direct > >>>> read write write > >>>>2.6.27 xfs 1.17 3.69 3.80 > >>>>2.6.32 xfs 1.26 0.52 5.10 > >>>> ^^^^ > >>>>2.6.32 ext3 1.19 4.91 5.02 > > > >Out of curiousity, what does 2.6.34 get on this workload? > > 2.6.34 works quite well: > 2.6.34 xfs 1.14 4.75 5.00 Ok, so we are looking at a fixed regression, then. What stable version of 2.6.32 are you testing? A large number of XFS fixes went into 2.6.32.12 (IIRC, it might have been .13), so maybe the problem is fixed there. Alternatively, can you use 2.6.34 rather than 2.6.32, or bisect the regression down to a specific set of fixes so we can consider whether a backport is worth the effort? > The same is with -o osyncisosync (in .34). Actually, > osyncis[od]sync mount options does not change anything, not > in .32 nor in .34. I think only osyncisosync exists, and it doesn't do anything anymore. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
