From: Tomasz Chmielewski Subject: Re: very poor ext3 write performance on big filesystems? Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:02:36 +0100 Message-ID: <47B99E0C.8020706@wpkg.org> References: <47B980AC.2080806@wpkg.org> <20080218141640.GC12568@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Theodore Tso , Andi Kleen , Tomasz Chmielewski , LKML , LKML Return-path: Received: from mail.syneticon.net ([213.239.212.131]:49722 "EHLO mail2.syneticon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752370AbYBRPCo (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:02:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080218141640.GC12568@mit.edu> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Theodore Tso schrieb: (...) >> What has helped a bit was to recreate the file system with -O^dir_index >> dir_index seems to cause more seeks. > > Part of it may have simply been recreating the filesystem, not > necessarily removing the dir_index feature. You mean, copy data somewhere else, mkfs a new filesystem, and copy data back? Unfortunately, doing it on a file level is not possible with a reasonable amount of time. I tried to copy that filesystem once (when it was much smaller) with "rsync -a -H", but after 3 days, rsync was still building an index and didn't copy any file. Also, as files/hardlinks come and go, it would degrade again. Are there better choices than ext3 for a filesystem with lots of hardlinks? ext4, once it's ready? xfs? -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org