From: Holger Kiehl Subject: Re: Performance of ext4 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:58:00 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <18563.1213215457@alphaville.zko.hp.com> <18513.345.553912.449710@frecb006361.adech.frec.bull.fr> <20080612131928.GB18229@mit.edu> <20080612180605.GD22481@skywalker> <20080616175408.GF3279@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20080616181353.GA20686@skywalker> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Jan Kara , Theodore Tso , Solofo.Ramangalahy@bull.net, Nick Dokos , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Return-path: Received: from dwdmx4.dwd.de ([141.38.3.230]:57478 "EHLO dwdmx4.dwd.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754250AbYFRF6J (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:58:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by node2.dwd.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D35F4A43DA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:58:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (node2.csg-cluster.lan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525) with SMTP id 32107-85 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:58:07 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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