1111
Comment:
|
1361
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 22: | Line 22: |
Update: I also tried on `august` to copy the `base.cow` to a larger 233GB partition, 0.2% full, and then copy on this partition, and it took 6s. So a little improvement, but that is not the reason, why it is so terribly slow, compared to `dakol`. |
Benchmarks of COW directory copies and removal in [:cowbuilder: cowbuilder].
Details
The numbers in the copy column were generated using:
time sudo cp -al /var/cache/pbuilder/base.cow /tmp/new
and in the remove column:
time sudo rm -rf /tmp/new
computer |
copy |
remove |
computer details |
pc232 |
16.1 |
18.2 |
Intel Core 2 Duo, ST3250820AS /dev/sda1 (10GB, xfs, 80% full), sid, i386 |
august |
9.3 |
10.9 |
Intel Core 2 Quad, ST3320620AS /dev/sda1 (20GB, xfs, 20% full), sid, i386 |
dakol |
0.48 |
0.5 |
AMD Athlon 64 3800+, ST3160827AS /dev/sda7 (135GB, xfs, 32% full), sid, amd64 |
fuji |
13.9 |
16.4 |
Intel Core Duo, WDC WD1600BEVS-2 /dev/sda1 (14GB, xfs, 33% full), sid, i386 |
If anyone has any explanation, why dakol is 20x faster than the other computers, please write it here. Is it because of the position of the disk partition, or that it's larger? pc232 is full, but the other computers have around the same disk usage. Note: /var and /tmp is on the same partition on all computers.
Update: I also tried on august to copy the base.cow to a larger 233GB partition, 0.2% full, and then copy on this partition, and it took 6s. So a little improvement, but that is not the reason, why it is so terribly slow, compared to dakol.