From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Dec 21 12:51:46 2021 Received: (at 51787) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Dec 2021 17:51:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55522 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mzjIg-0006Dn-5a for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:51:46 -0500 Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.19]:53019) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mzjId-0006DR-Qv for 51787@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:51:44 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B924632007D7; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:51:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:51:38 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=wpL1pBUfY4TyiCiU1BIcLzNCyFxMarIjym3Zp3IJZ80=; b=nizKUSfVlrEA lbtZ1a/QXvfgUvb89GY5Ya983slBHa8e8neN9Ew/rNZqaTj4wLwrLSQGE9Z5FKpz CXOvfZcDb124sMyCMzpWppq9XL0Ore7ncZdf1uThcsbSXhVIrvWruaR5j+At1B8q drr1DkltXItBPRKvdv1k4O+s5l7UEfo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=wpL1pBUfY4TyiCiU1BIcLzNCyFxMarIjym3Zp3IJZ 80=; b=Y7rEEaQKUiFRA6D5H823eLLUgl7AQMdT+WBuKFTaGpSAM54jhar53X4Zo raWui/XzT0FfzY9sMUH+Z0v/KP7zQq2CR9cZE1XPcefgQR3WBWKqjCGwOt/yGdXx XhULH1OhdhGUVB1GazlCsJGTsrit2Uk1gjRd65fcK3ErRfnXv/iUdVJKltV8xmLs 3O89ICPgaz3ldskNYGaRoYFbtlwz5vSNM7uflkhzIWsQE3l1xjl6P8FH4Fi52DKt qu44e4+w/gIhjUDO6FcsGTDlA3HSMFsaPzxgfdJyaNuC6LiVjo29QHggKnryNjGI xgxJtRs3NDXvh+n5JCFY/hg5DheNw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddruddtgedguddtjecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggugfgjsehtkeertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefnvgho ucfhrghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpefgudffteettdekkeduhffgfefgieefgeeuieetudejffelieduueeifffg udfgudenucffohhmrghinhepghhnuhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:51:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:51:35 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: bug#51787: Disk performance on ci.guix.gnu.org Message-ID: References: <875yrjpi1y.fsf@elephly.net> <87o85bjjpm.fsf@gnu.org> <871r27p5jq.fsf@elephly.net> <87a6gv3pue.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8zhn9m1.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87v8zhn9m1.fsf@elephly.net> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 51787 Cc: Mathieu Othacehe , 51787@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 06:26:03PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > We could take this opportunity to reformat /gnu with btrfs, which > performs quite a bit more poorly than ext4 but would be immune to > defragmentation. It’s not clear that defragmentation matters here. It > could just be that the problem is exclusively caused by having these > incredibly large, flat /gnu/store, /gnu/store/.links, and > /gnu/store/trash directories. My impression was that btrfs could also become fragmented. At least, btrfs-progrs includes a command for defragmenting. Or do I misunderstand?