On 15/09/17 02:45, Sam McLeod wrote:> Out of interest have you tried testing performance > with performance.stat-prefetch enabled?Not yet, because I'm still struggling to understand the current more basic setup's performance behaviour (with it being off), but it's definitely on my list and I'll report the outcome.
On 15/09/17 03:46, Niklas Hamb?chen wrote:>> Out of interest have you tried testing performance >> with performance.stat-prefetch enabled?I have now tested with `performance.stat-prefetch: on` but am not observing a difference. So far the only difference between `ls` and `bup index` I could observe is that `bup index` chdir()s into the directory to index, ls doesn't. But when I `cd` into the dir and run `ls` without directory argument, it is still much faster than bup index for each stat().
On 17/09/17 18:03, Niklas Hamb?chen wrote:> So far the only difference between `ls` and `bup index` I could observe > is that `bup index` chdir()s into the directory to index, ls doesn't. > > But when I `cd` into the dir and run `ls` without directory argument, it > is still much faster than bup index for each stat().Hmm, bup uses the fchdir() syscall to go into the target directory. Might that make a difference for gluster?