From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: Ext4 benchmarks Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:21:59 -0600 Message-ID: <20070404192159.GS5967@schatzie.adilger.int> References: <45FFFBAA.6080404@bull.net> <4613DB20.1040605@bull.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Mingming Cao , "AVANTIKA R. MATHUR" To: Cordenner jean noel Return-path: Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:39734 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932330AbXDDTWG (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:22:06 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4613DB20.1040605@bull.net> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Apr 04, 2007 19:06 +0200, Cordenner jean noel wrote: > here is the first results of the round: > http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20070404/ Jean Noel, thank you for the test results. It is always nice to see that ext4 is doing so well compared to ext3 and XFS. Ming Ming, it should be possible to just include the mballoc+delalloc patches that Jean Noel used into the upstream ext4 patch series. When Alex or Christoph get a chance to do the VFS delalloc rewrite we can move to that new patch, but until then it seems pointless to not include this functionality which improves the performance so much. Also, if we include those patches the mballoc and delalloc features (along with extents) should be enabled by default if INCOMPAT_EXTENTS is in the superblock unless: - "noextents", "nomballoc", or "nodelalloc" mount options are given - delalloc needs to be disabled if blocksize != PAGE_SIZE Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.