There is a big difference between IO/s and MB/s. Sequential writes can easily reach 100MB/s with current HDD. For random IO, 3 MB/s is not unusual. Use "iostat -x 1" to observe your disks. 150 IO/s for desktop drives is quite normal.
If, while you are working with darktable, the right-most column of iostat output says "100%", then darktable is indeed limited by disk speed. The most simple fix might be to get a SSD for /home. That way you could also see whether it's updates to the XMPs that are taking for ever (quite possible the way I understand btrfs) or whether it's the updates to the database. > That's not a plausible scenario, but I regularly set a tag to 20 or 30 > pictures and this takes around a second. This is mostly because my > pictures are in a network external drive, and it takes time to recreate > the xmp. But there database is really fast, no issue on this. For > example looking for pictures with a specific tag is instantaneous. SQLite is a bit touchy with writes. If darktable sends separate UPDATEs for each tag and you want to add a tag to say all your 20k ** rated pictures that might cause a lot of fsync() calls which would be rather slow. Elmar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Darktable-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
