Chris Mason wrote:
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.
Ok.
Is this a fresh mkfs or are you reusing an existing tree?
In between. New mkfs before benchmark run, multiple tests are all then
run with unmounting and remounting, but no new mkfs. The random write is
preceded by sequential reads and random reads.
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.
Ok, will probably just run the 128 thread random write next time, since
I am not seeing much difference on anything else.
Steve
-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
