From: Holger Kiehl <Holger.Kiehl@dwd.de>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
Solofo.Ramangalahy@bull.net, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Performance of ext4
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:58:00 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806180546370.20901@diagnostix.dwd.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806171001200.6307@diagnostix.dwd.de>
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Holger Kiehl wrote:
> Doing several test with '-m 0' I was unable to reproduce this and I could
> now do several runs with afdbench. However the results do show that with
> ext4-patch-queue it actually slower:
>
> For ext3: 5449.76 files per second 15.58 MiB/s
> For ext4: 5162.16 files per second 15.48 MiB/s
> For ext4+patch-queue: 4963.6975 files per second 14.73 MiB/s
>
> On the positive side the bonnie++ numbers got much better:
>
> Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
> --Random-
> -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
> --Seeks--
> Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec
> %CP
> ext3 16G 51501 97 210601 91 100479 32 55528 98 301589 44 1198
> 5
> 16G 52702 98 215540 94 99339 32 55376 97 300933 44 1159
> 4
> 16G 52426 99 212584 94 99091 31 55656 98 301669 44 1160
> 4
> ext4 16G 52965 98 224199 89 108440 32 56389 99 303792 42 1526
> 4
> 16G 52792 98 223980 92 107685 32 56350 98 303066 42 1532
> 4
> 16G 52994 98 222354 92 107802 32 56386 99 303727 41 1455
> 4
> ext4(patchqueue)16G 59727 98 252733 52 110177 25 55821 98 296739 42 1553
> 5
> 16G 61047 99 239242 48 111664 25 55706 98 297151 42 1545
> 4
> 16G 60503 99 241532 47 109655 25 55671 98 297648 42 1552
> 3
>
> ext3 and ext4 tests where done with 2.6.25.4 and those with patch-queue was
> 2.6.26-rc5. I will do another test run with 2.6.26-rc5 without patch-queue
> just to make sure that the slowdown does not happen due to changes in the
> 2.6.26 branch.
>
Here the results without patch queue:
Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
16G 52133 98 221378 95 106873 32 55707 99 297065 42 1546 4
16G 52042 98 220931 93 107715 32 55939 98 298810 42 1543 3
16G 52975 98 220976 93 108060 31 56426 98 298906 42 1452 4
For afdbench: 5336.41 files per second 15.63 MiB/s
So it seems that for afdbench the ext4-patch-queue is a slowdown.
I forgot to mention that for bonnie ext4-patch-queue reduces CPU-load
a lot. For block writting it is nearly halved.
Holger
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-18 5:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-11 8:02 Holger Kiehl
2008-06-11 10:59 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-11 19:58 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-11 20:17 ` Nick Dokos
2008-06-12 9:02 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-12 10:58 ` Solofo.Ramangalahy
2008-06-12 12:00 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-12 13:19 ` Theodore Tso
2008-06-12 14:07 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-12 18:06 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-12 19:50 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-13 8:05 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-16 17:54 ` Jan Kara
2008-06-16 18:13 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-17 11:42 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-18 5:58 ` Holger Kiehl [this message]
2008-06-19 6:58 ` Andreas Dilger
2008-06-19 11:09 ` Theodore Tso
2008-06-19 15:04 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-07-07 13:13 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-07-10 8:11 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-19 15:56 ` Theodore Tso
2008-06-19 16:41 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-06-19 17:42 ` Theodore Tso
2008-06-19 19:51 ` Mingming
2008-06-20 8:32 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-20 8:59 ` Theodore Tso
2008-06-20 9:21 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-23 17:45 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-24 0:31 ` Mingming
2008-06-24 3:07 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-24 3:28 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-24 3:33 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-24 21:12 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-24 22:58 ` Mingming
2008-06-25 9:09 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-26 0:46 ` Mingming
2008-06-27 9:14 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-27 9:49 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-27 10:00 ` Jan Kara
2008-06-27 17:35 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-24 17:58 ` Mingming
2008-06-24 12:57 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-23 20:55 ` Andreas Dilger
2008-06-20 8:09 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-21 15:02 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-11 13:54 ` Theodore Tso
2008-06-11 20:21 ` Holger Kiehl
2008-06-12 1:35 ` Theodore Tso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0806180546370.20901@diagnostix.dwd.de \
--to=holger.kiehl@dwd.de \
--cc=Solofo.Ramangalahy@bull.net \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicholas.dokos@hp.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®