Hello Claudio and all, On 2013-11-18 T 16:57 -0200 Claudio Freire wrote:
I know nobody is paying attention,
Thanks for sharing the tests! I definitely do pay attention, and I know that others do as well, even if there is not always a direct response (based on time constraints for example).
but I wanted to post some concrete results of a database restore of approximately 200GB, before I forgot:
That said, allow me one comment or question:
So, at least one conclusion can be drawn from this:
Under heaving writing, btrfs induces noticeably higher read await times than ext4, resulting in the considerably sluggish system I reported initially. [...] Yes, ext4 took longer (14 minutes longer). That could be noise, the system wasn't totally idle (I was browsing with firefox, painfully slowly, but inducing some extra load). It does look though to be an I/O scheduling issue more than a performance issue, because restore times are comparable.
Well, so, in the end, btrfs was faster, but the system less responsible to user interaction. Is that the right summary? If yes, that would not be too bad of a result, as for a system dedicated to a database, direct user interaction is not the primary use case. :-/ Just for my curiosity: Which type of backend did you use (HDD or SSD?) and which IO Scheduler associated? so long - MgE -- Matthias G. Eckermann Senior Product Manager SUSE® Linux Enterprise SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org