Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751420Ab2JQEoS (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:44:18 -0400 Received: from spam1.hanyang.ac.kr ([166.104.177.29]:45804 "EHLO spam1.hanyang.ac.kr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750877Ab2JQEoR (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:44:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:44:07 +0900 (GMT) From: Sooman Jeong <77smart@hanyang.ac.kr> To: Namjae Jeon Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, YOUJIP WON Message-ID: <1350449047509.2800.151.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr> In-Reply-To: References: <1350360423154.2800.144.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr>, Subject: Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Postian WebMail Ver.5.30.1406 X-IP: 166.104.177.101 X-FROM-DOMAIN: hanyang.ac.kr X-FROM-EMAIL: 77smart@hanyang.ac.kr Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from BASE64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id q9H4iPDS001981 Content-Length: 5616 Lines: 114 Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:58:59 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: >Hello. > >Would you share the result about random read ? > >Thanks. > >2012/10/16, Sooman Jeong <77smart@hanyang.ac.kr>: >> >> This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs >> against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. >> >> >> * test platform >> i) Desktop PC : Linux 3.6.1 (f2fs patched), Intel i5-2500 @3.3GHz >> quad-core, 8GB RAM, Transcend 16GB class 10 micro SD card >> ii) Galaxy-S3 : Linux 3.0.15 (f2fs ported), Android 4.0.4, DVFS turned off, >> Transcend 16GB class 10 micro SD card >> >> >> * experiment 1: buffered write(sequential and random, 4KByte write) >> =================================================================== >> >> F2FS surpasses other two filesystems in both random and sequential. In >> desktop and Galaxy S3, f2fs exhibits 2.5 and 1.6 times better performance in >> random write against EXT4, respectively. EXT4 is standard Android >> filesystem. >> >> buffered write (1GB file) >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Desktop PC Galaxy-S3 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> sequential (MB/s) random (IOPS) sequential (MB/s) random (IOPS) >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> EXT4 7.1 1073 6.7 1073 >> NILFS2 6.8 1462 4.0 1272 >> F2FS 10.6 2675 6.9 1682 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> * experiment 2: write + fsync(sequential and random) >> ==================================================== >> >> F2FS surpasses other two filesystems in both random and sequential workload. >> In desktop and Galaxy S3, f2fs exhibits 2 and 1.5 times better performance >> in write+fsync random write against EXT4, respectively. >> >> write + fsync (100MB file) >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Desktop PC Galaxy-S3 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> sequential (KB/s) random (IOPS) sequential (KB/s) random (IOPS) >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> EXT4 511.8 125 383.4 119 >> NILFS2 545.2 112 356.7 72 >> F2FS 1057.9 240 772.3 184 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> write() with fsync is to test the filesystem performance under Android >> SQLite operation. >> >> >> * experiment 3: mounting time >> =============================== >> >> To measure the mount time, we used two different scenarios. First, we >> mounted file system after formatting without rebooting system. Second, we >> mounted file system after rebooting in order to ensure any data cached in >> memory is flushed. Overall, EXT4 shows fastest mount time, and F2FS shows >> second best performance; however, we observed that F2FS takes longest time >> to mount right after formatting. >> >> mounting time with Transcend 16GB micro-SD >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Desktop PC Galaxy-S3 >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 1st mount after after rebooting 1st mount after after rebooting >> format (msec) (msec) format (msec) (msec) >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> EXT4 11 20 20 40 >> NILFS2 920 1013 1680 1630 >> F2FS 1486 161 2280 1570 >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Sooman Jeong ESOS Lab. Hanyang University. >> <77smart@hanyang.ac.kr> As you have requested, I have attached result of read performance(iozone). * experiment 4: read(sequential and random) ==================================================== F2FS shows slightly better read performance than other two filesystems in both sequential and random workload. buffered read (1GB file) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Desktop PC Galaxy-S3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ sequential (MB/s) random (IOPS) sequential (MB/s) random (IOPS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT4 16.4 1568 9.6 1395 NILFS2 16.6 1609 9.6 1440 F2FS 16.8 1643 9.7 1499 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * iozone command : iozone -i 0 -i 1 -i 2 -f /mnt/ext/test.txt -s 1G -r 4k -+n -e -U /mnt/ext Sooman Jeong ????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?