On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:13:53PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote: > This did not seem to help, in fact we regressed more with COW > enabled.. One thing to note, the last 2 sets of runs in the history > graphs were actually run by Keith and he used stock kernel trees. > For my recreate, I pulled the latest btrfs-unstable which is based > on a 2.6.34 tree. Should I retest this on stock 2.6.35? The high > time in btrfs_start_one_delalloc_inode still exists.
btrfs-unstable or .35 are both fine. Is this a fresh mkfs or are you reusing an existing tree? > > Full results can be found here: > http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/perftest/perfpatch/perfpatch.html > > 128 thread random write test that shows the problem: > > http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/perftest/perfpatch/perfpatch_Large_file_random_writes._num_threads=128.html Ok, thanks, I'll try again. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
