From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 17 01:11:41 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCD2106567E for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 01:11:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Devin.Teske@fisglobal.com) Received: from mx1.fisglobal.com (mx1.fisglobal.com [199.200.24.190]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61E1A8FC18 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 01:11:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (ltcfislmsgpa01 [127.0.0.1]) by ltcfislmsgpa01.fnfis.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id q4H0QOwq003552; Wed, 16 May 2012 20:11:35 -0500 Received: from smtp.fisglobal.com ([10.132.206.17]) by ltcfislmsgpa01.fnfis.com with ESMTP id 14vnxb07fp-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 May 2012 20:11:34 -0500 Received: from [10.0.0.105] (10.14.152.61) by smtp.fisglobal.com (10.132.206.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Wed, 16 May 2012 20:11:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Devin Teske In-Reply-To: <20120516230615.GC84284@server.rulingia.com> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:11:32 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <20120516230615.GC84284@server.rulingia.com> To: Peter Jeremy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Originating-IP: [10.14.152.61] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.6.7580, 1.0.260, 0.0.0000 definitions=2012-05-16_10:2012-05-16, 2012-05-16, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "make delete-old" performance. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Devin Teske List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 01:11:41 -0000 On May 16, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > I recently ran "make delete-old" on a -current box and felt it was > rather slow. That prompted me to do some more careful experiments. >=20 > On one box where I have both 8-stable and 9-stable available, there > was a ~30x slowdown (based on 5 runs, ignoring the first). I don't > have a -current world on that box so I can't directly compare but on > another pair of fairly similar boxes, I get a ~180x slowdown between > 8-stable and -current (and that figure is probably optimistic since > the -current box was idle whereas the 8-stable box was fairly busy). >=20 > I realise that "make delete-old" isn't something you nede to do every > day but going from sub-second to multi-minute duration is quite > noticable. Can anyone suggest what has caused the change? >=20 > --=20 > Peter Jeremy Right now, I believe the most useful comparison between systems is (assumin= g UFS is in play) the output of "tunefs -p" for the filesystem that the slo= wness is appearing on. SoftUpdates (and whether it's enabled or disabled) can play a huge differen= ce in how fast file-deletions are. Also note that SU+J may be interesting if-set in 9 (while not available in = 8). --=20 Devin _____________ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidentia= l. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message an= d all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any ma= nner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware= that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and revie= w by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.