Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 25 Nov 1997 06:24:35 +1100
From:      Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To:        bde@zeta.org.au, tlambert@primenet.com
Cc:        fs@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: ufs slowness
Message-ID:  <199711241924.GAA27999@godzilla.zeta.org.au>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 		ext2fs	ffs
>> 	seeks	372	144
>> 	xfers	372	145
>> 	blks	2751	1395
>> 	msps	0.5	4.1

>o	Is this a ZBR disk?  If not, are you using FreeBSD's
>	default settings, which pessimize geometry optimizations
>	for these disks?

Of course it's ZBR.  FreeBSD's default settings haven't done any
significant geometry optimizations for several years.

>o	Was the FFS optimizing for space or time when writing?

Time of course.  The ufs disk wasn't very full (53% actually).
Ther ext2fs disk was 93% full.

>o	Did you set a reasonable reserve so the hash-to-disk was
>	efficient on the FFS writes, or did you take FreeBSD's
>	politically motivated defaults (Hey!  I'm "wasting" almost
>	1G of my 9G disk!).

Irrelevant, since it wasn't very full.

>o	ext2fs is extent based, so it's probably not dealing with
>	indirect blocks.

Not important for small files.  The speed is about the same for
large (> memory size) sequential files.

>o	You are engaging in an atypical usage pattern by doing
>	a "tar" as your test.  First, there is zero locality of

This is not atypical for me.

>	reference, and second, the way tar traverses means that
>	on a tree that large, you've effectively disable the name
>	cache for FFS (you've damaged it for ext2fs as well, but
>	not to the same degree of fairness, given the relative
>	costs of directory operations and ext2fs's use of extent
>	based files for storing directory data).

I used a large enough directory to damage the (data) cache on purpose.
There are 3739 files.  This is apparently enough to also damage
directory caches

>I'd say the *vast* majority of time spent is in directory operations,
>rather than actual file data reading (ie: I think the hit from going
>to indirect blocks in FFS is small).

I agree.  Perhaps it's just ext2fs hanging on to directory blocks better.

>I'm also betting that you created the ext2fs by tarring up the
>FFS and untarring it onto the ext2fs.  Do the same to recreate an

I actually used `cp -pR' from ext2fs to ufs.

Bruce



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711241924.GAA27999>