ext4 definitely faster than xfs Re: [Nolug] Fastest way to create a local mirror of a huge tree?

On 09/06/2011 10:21 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> The mirror doesn't exist yet, so rsync's clever data-minimizing
> algorithms aren't valid. (Also, there are lots of symlinks that need be
> preserved.)
>
> 1. cp -av /data /mnt/backups/data
> 2. cd /data && tar -cvf – . | (cd /mnt/backups/data && tar -xpvf -)
> 3. rsync -avz --stats --progress /data /mnt/backups/data
>
> In a long test, I got 32MB/s from the cp when copying files in the 200MB
> to 4GB range, but 4MB/s for files in the 100KB range.
>

When copying from an xfs to an ext4 fs, I cot the aforementioned 30-32MBps.

After replacing a bad drive (a few unreadable sectors) and reformatting
the xfs device as ext4, I'm now getting 40-64MBps (specifically it's
bouncing between 40, 50 and 64MBps.

This is Ubuntu 10.10.

$ uname -r
2.6.35-30-generic-pae

The xfs device had default mount options, and the ext4 devices have
mount options "defaults,noatime,noauto,data=writeback".

OK, maybe ext4 isn't *definitely* faster, but I've made it faster, and
that's what's most important to me... :)

Still, bonnie++ says that I should get 95MBps so I'm still not super
enthused.

-- 
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org