Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752759Ab2JVLgu (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:36:50 -0400 Received: from spam1.hanyang.ac.kr ([166.104.177.29]:38354 "EHLO spam1.hanyang.ac.kr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751438Ab2JVLgt (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:36:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:36:43 +0900 (GMT) From: Sooman Jeong <77smart@hanyang.ac.kr> To: Pavel Machek Cc: Sooman Jeong <77smart@hanyang.ac.kr>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vyacheslav Dubeyko Message-ID: <1350905803450.1936.166.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr> In-Reply-To: <20121021102638.GA14031@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1350360423154.2800.144.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr> <20121020192215.GB555@elf.ucw.cz> ,<20121021102638.GA14031@elf.ucw.cz> 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 q9MBaqE0028734 Content-Length: 4176 Lines: 83 On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:26:38 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >Hi! > >>>> This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against >>>> existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. >>>> >>> >>> Hmm, flashes are actually optimized for VFAT, right? Can you compare >>> against that? >>> >> >> Do you mean SD-cards? Because, as I can understand, "raw" flash (I mean NAND chip) >> hasn't any special filesystem-related optimization. Moreover, as I know, this optimization >> takes place in the begin of device (because FAT metadata is placed in the volume's begin). >> But if you have several partition on a device then you haven't any optimizations for second >> and next FAT partitions. So, in-place modified metadata of f2fs is placed in the begin of >> the volume also. >> >>Or, maybe, do you mean some another special optimization for VFAT? >> > >I meant SD-card, sorry. Compare factory-formatted VFAT on SD card with >f2fs running on the same partition. > > Pavel >-- >(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek >(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html Hi, As requested, I compared performance of VFAT with f2fs on SD card. Following is summary of the measurement. VFAT shows better performance on both random write+fsync and buffered-sequential write than f2fs. However, on buffered-random and sequential write+fsync, f2fs still exhibits better performance than other filesystems. * buffered write (1GB file), 4KByte write ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 VFAT 7.3 1108 7.3 1075 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * write + fsync (100MB file), 4KByte write ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 VFAT 356.5 260 474.4 373 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * buffered read (1GB file), 4KByte read ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 VFAT 16.6 1592 9.6 1501 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * 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?