On Donnerstag, 2. September 2010 Dave Chinner wrote: > -> free block Is the SSD-needed "trim" belonging into here? > In contrast, XFS CPU consumption increases per-operation in a > predictable fashion - O(log n) where n is the number of directory > entries. e.g for 4k directory blocks it increases by ~2x from 100k > entries to 1m entries, and another 2x from 1M entries to 10M entries > and so on, but the result is that the IO patterns are rarely enough > to cause operations to become seek bound. Now I understand, thanks again for that great explanation. > > Maybe there should be an extra SSE4 assembler instruction "rm on > > XFS" so we can delete files faster? ;-) > > You'd need an entire ASIC, not an instruction ;) Time to invent the "XFS rm co-processor". Should be multi-core so it scales better. Maybe someone writes a graphics cards plugin for XFS? Then we'd see an increase of servers with fast GFX cards "because we need to delete files quickly". And at times no users are deleting files, the admins can play Doom on the servers. ;-) -- mit freundlichen Grüssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee] Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 ****** Aktuelles Radiointerview! ****** http://www.it-podcast.at/aktuelle-sendung.html // Wir haben im Moment zwei Häuser zu verkaufen: // http://zmi.at/langegg/ // http://zmi.at/haus2009/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
