Linux w/ reiserfs 3.x vs a SUN SAN 7410 running solaris and ZFS

Re:Linux w/ reiserfs 3.x vs a SUN SAN 7410 running solaris a... by ajross on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:07PM (#893565)

This is the meat:

Reiserfs does an "ls" in a directory with 6000 files in it in about 3-5 seconds. The SUN SAN does it in about 1-2 minutes. Serious problems here.

That has to be a bug, not merely slow filesystem behavior. Even doing a seek for every block (4k on ZFS?) at 10ms for a minute comes to 4kb of data per directory entry. That's ridiculous. Something is broken; probably an interaction between subsystems (hardware cache, software cache, ZFS filesystem, network filesystem, SAN configuration, etc...).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux w/ reiserfs 3.x vs a SUN SAN 7410 running solaris a... by scumola on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:07PM (#893652)

ZFS uses an Extensible hash table dor its directory while most of the other filesystems use a b-tree. I'm no ZFS expert, but perhaps this method degrades for larger directories?

I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm trying to fix the performance problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux w/ reiserfs 3.x vs a SUN SAN 7410 running solaris a... by moe on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:50PM (#893697)

    mkdir /tmp/foo
    cd /tmp/foo
    for ((i=0;$i<6000;i++)); do touch $i; done
    time ls >/dev/null

    real    0m0.012s
    user    0m0.012s
    sys     0m0.000s

Perhaps try ext3?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux w/ reiserfs 3.x vs a SUN SAN 7410 running solaris a... by scumola on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @10:08PM (#893832)

Those are obviously in cache.

[ Parent | on HN ]