From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 20 10:29:13 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6372516A479; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:29:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from regnauld@x0.dk) Received: from x0.dk (x0.dk [62.242.165.154]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE76843D46; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:29:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from regnauld@x0.dk) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by tetard.starbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F5B3565C; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:29:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tetard.starbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tetard.starbsd.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27908-05; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:29:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tetard.starbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4556E35667; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:29:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:29:10 +0200 From: Phil Regnauld To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek Message-ID: <20060620102910.GG27055@tetard.starbsd.org> References: <20060619131101.GD1130@garage.freebsd.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060619131101.GD1130@garage.freebsd.pl> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE i386 Organization: *BSD User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at starbsd.org Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Journaling UFS with gjournal. X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:29:13 -0000 On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 03:11:01PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > Copying one large file: > UFS: 8s > UFS+SU: 8s > gjournal(1): 16s > gjournal(2): 14s This is very very interesting work! I am definitely going to test this. I know this is too early to ask considering the optimizations that can be done, but do you have any idea how this would perform compared to ReiserFS on similar operations as the ones you benchmarked ? PS: is it me or is the patch missing a gjournal command, as invoked in your examples ? Cheers, Phil