Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

From: Mike Galbraith
Date: Thu Apr 30 2015 - 10:33:34 EST

On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 07:07 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On 04/30/2015 06:48 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 05:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >> On Thursday, April 30, 2015 5:07:21 AM PDT, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 04:14 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Lovely sounding argument, but it is wrong because Tux3 still beats XFS
> >>>> even with seek time factored out of the equation.
> >>>
> >>> Hm. Do you have big-storage comparison numbers to back that? I'm no
> >>> storage guy (waiting for holographic crystal arrays to obsolete all this
> >>> crap;), but Dave's big-storage guy words made sense to me.
> >>
> >> This has nothing to do with big storage. The proposition was that seek
> >> time is the reason for Tux3's fsync performance. That claim was easily
> >> falsified by removing the seek time.
> >>
> >> Dave's big storage words are there to draw attention away from the fact
> >> that XFS ran the Git tests four times slower than Tux3 and three times
> >> slower than Ext4. Whatever the big storage excuse is for that, the fact
> >> is, XFS obviously sucks at little storage.
> >
> > If you allocate spanning the disk from start of life, you're going to
> > eat seeks that others don't until later. That seemed rather obvious and
> > straight forward.
> It is a logical falacy. It mixes a grain of truth (spreading all over the
> disk causes extra seeks) with an obvious falsehood (it is not necessarily
> the only possible way to avoid long term fragmentation).

Shrug, but seems it is a solution, and more importantly, an implemented
solution. What I gleaned up as a layman reader is that xfs has no
fragmentation issue, but tux3 still does. It doesn't seem right to slam
xfs for a conscious design decision unless tux3 can proudly display its
superior solution, which I gathered doesn't yet exist.

> > He flat stated that xfs has passable performance on
> > single bit of rust, and openly explained why. I see no misdirection,
> > only some evidence of bad blood between you two.
> Raising the spectre of theoretical fragmentation issues when we have not
> even begun that work is a straw man and intellectually dishonest. You have
> to wonder why he does it. It is destructive to our community image and
> harmful to progress.

Well ok, let's forget bad blood, straw men... and answering my question
too I suppose. Not having any sexy IO gizmos in my little desktop box,
I don't care deeply which stomps the other flat on beastly boxen.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at