From: Jean-Pierre Dion Subject: Re: Ext4 benchmarks Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:06:24 +0200 Message-ID: <460A3010.6080201@bull.net> References: <45FFFBAA.6080404@bull.net> <4600A1BD.80700@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: jrs@us.ibm.com Return-path: Received: from ecfrec.frec.bull.fr ([129.183.4.8]:52993 "EHLO ecfrec.frec.bull.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752659AbXC1JGI (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 05:06:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4600A1BD.80700@us.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Hi Jose, thank you for the feedback. We took your remarks into account and we are doing some perfs with iozone (close to desktop activity, mono-thread) and ffsb (allows to run benchs in a multi-thread activity like a server does, different blocks sizes...). We compare ext3 and ext4 (with extents, w/ and w/o del alloc...)... We will publish the results on bullopensource.org jean-pierre Jose R. Santos wrote: > Jean-Pierre Dion wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> we already discussed during the conf calls what >> benchmarks should be ran on ext4. >> >> As we have OLS paper on the table we were thinking >> here at Bull what bench t run and on which kernel. >> >> If we want trying to compare ext3 and ext4, I guess we >> should at least show that : >> - ext4 has equivalent perfs than ext3, >> > > Define equivalent performance. > > Are the workloads only going to be focused on single repetitive > operations or simulation of actual desktop/server environments? How > about performance on an aged filesystem? >> - improvements done for ext3 are still in ext4 (mb alloc, del alloc...). >> >> So we were wondering what's best to do : >> - run on 2.6.19 (includes del alloc and mb alloc if I am not wrong), >> - run on 2.6.20 (lacks mb alloc), >> > > What about system configurations? While a desktop configuration would > be easy to come by, a server configuration needs a bit more thought. > Will ext4 perform better than ext3 in a wide range of storage > configuration that scale from a couple thousands IOPS to several > hundred thousand IOPS? > > Having baseline data on other filesystems like XFS or JFS would be > interesting as well to see how well ext4 stacks up to the competition. :) >> - select relevant benchs (iozone...). >> > > I haven checked IOzone in quite a bit but last time I checked FFSB had > a couple of capabilities that are not available in IOzone like multi > threading on a shared data set and a very customizable IO operations > to attempt to simulate real IO patterns seen on workloads. Might be > worth a look if your interested in compiling a very comprehensive set > of results >> What do you think ? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> jean-pierre >> > > -JRS >