search for: 6cm7jr7b_ek

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

I found the reason now, at least for this set of lstat()s I was looking at. bup first does all getdents(), obtaining all file names in the directory, and then stat()s them. Apparently this destroys some of gluster's caching, making stat()s ~100x slower. What caching could this be, and how could I convince gluster to serve these stat()s as fast as if a getdents() had been done just before