On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:44:24 +0200, Victor Stinner wrote:
Should I try other KVM option (e.g. use another type of image)? Try
btrfs RAID instead of Linux MD RAID? Try to disable some CPU cores?
Or
maybe not using btrfs for KVM images? :-)
Hi,
I would suggest you the following points:
-
2011/5/10 David Sterba d...@jikos.cz
Hi,
I've hit this lockdep warning, 2.6.39rc6. Single btrfs partition, 30GB,
filled with 2GB, compress-force=lzo, warning trigered after normal copy+du.
Happened only once.
[Might be a false positive.]
Hi,
I have a similar error with 3.0-rc6.
OS:
Here is a small btrfs vs. ext4 benchmark with kernel 2.6.37-rc1.
compilebench with options -i 10 -r 30 on 2.6.37-rc1
btrfs
==
intial create total runs 10 avg 73.11 MB/s (user 0.34s sys 1.96s)
create total runs 5 avg 49.53
2010/11/1 cwillu cwi...@cwillu.com:
Can you include the mkfs and mount options in use?
mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb
mount -t btrfs /dev/sdb /mnt/btrfs
and for ext4:
mkfs.ext4 /dev/sdb
mount -t ext4 /dev/sdb/ mnt/btrfs
Best regards,
Morten
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
2010/8/18 Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com:
Hi,
We did some performance test and found the create/delete files performance
of btrfs is very poor.
The test is that we create 5 files and measure the file-create time
first, and then delete these 5 files and measure the file-delete time.
:49:05PM +0200, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
Hi,
i can confirm this issue with poor create and delete performance.
For example with unpacking and deleting the linux kernel:
Btrfs:
[r...@fc13 btrfs]# time tar xfj linux-2.6.36-rc1.tar.bz2
real0m18.794s
user0m12.045s
sys 0m8.241s
with hardware raid 0 on a LSI 1068e
controller.
Best regards,
Morten
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
Hi Chris,
Your compilebench results are very interesting.
Here are my results
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:46:22AM +0300, Ameya Palande wrote:
Hi Chris,
Today I was checking the Kconfig option for btrfs and it still says,
Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format
I remember
-Original Message-
From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs-
ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian 'gonX' Jensen
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:22 AM
To: linux-btrfs
Subject: Regarding full drives
I'm by no means a Linux guru... but btrfs-show shows me
To: Morten P.D. Stevens
Subject: Re: new benchmark btrfs 0.19 vs. ext4
These graphs represent your data.
I thought it would be easier to see the progress visually.
I tried posting to the list, but my post may have exceeded the size limit.
Maybe you could put on the web and post a link
avg 1.71 seconds (user 0.11s sys 1.06s)
stat tree total runs 14 avg 0.93 seconds (user 0.08s sys 0.62s)
stat compiled tree total runs 10 avg 1.09 seconds (user 0.09s sys 0.68s)
and here the old benchmark:
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 13:47 +0200, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
linux 2.6.29.1
btrfs
´m a little disappointed about the btrfs results.
I was hopefully that btrfs is faster than ext4
-
Morten
2009/4/4 Morten P.D. Stevens mstev...@win-professional.com:
Hi,
here are some tests on an IBM server with btrfs vs. ext4.
Kernel: 2.6.29.1
Benchmark software: compilerbench
Hi,
here are some tests on an IBM server with btrfs vs. ext4.
Kernel: 2.6.29.1
Benchmark software: compilerbench with options -i 10 -r 30
CPU: Intel Xeon Quadcore E5310
Chipset: Intel 5000
Memory: 4 GB FB-DIMM DDR2-667
HDDs: 2x WD6400AAKS @ Raid0
Storage Controller: IBM Serveraid 8k
btrfs
13 matches
Mail list logo
