[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: fedora-devel-list
Subject: Re: btrfs hash algorithm (should xxhash be the default?)
From: Neal Gompa <ngompa13 () gmail ! com>
Date: 2021-01-31 19:00:02
Message-ID: CAEg-Je_6zFyCrbkQ1=5aYZtAst-tsOiJ9JvYG8Nz133bhrpSzw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 1:57 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> On my Intel i7 laptop, xxhash is a small but clear performance win over
> crc32c:
>
> $ ./hash-speedtest 10000000
> Block size: 4096
> Iterations: 10000000
> Implementation: builtin
>
> NULL-NOP: cycles: 1372543560, c/i 137
> NULL-MEMCPY: cycles: 2844174884, c/i 284
> CRC32C: cycles: 9673117404, c/i 967
> XXHASH: cycles: 7129819594, c/i 712
> SHA256: cycles: 649914613520, c/i 64991
> BLAKE2b: cycles: 153513008046, c/i 15351
>
>
> And I'm given to understand that this is even more the case on newer CPUs.
>
> Plus, it's 64 bit instead of 32 bit. The 256-bit algorithms are obviously
> much, much slower and probably not right for a default, but should we
> consider making xxhash the default for Fedora Linux systems with btrfs?
>
I can't see a reason why we wouldn't at least move to xxhash, given
what hardware profiles we're typically running on.
Could you file an issue on the fedora-btrfs project[1] on it?
[1]: https://pagure.io/fedora-btrfs/project
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic