From: Justin Piszcz Subject: Re: EXT4 is ~2X as slow as XFS (593MB/s vs 304MB/s) for writes? Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:21:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <4B886CA1.9050906@redhat.com> <4B887160.2090606@redhat.com> <4B887548.50508@redhat.com> <20100228054240.GE14646@thunk.org> <832C6227-BF34-43C2-8768-1308C00AB17F@sun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: tytso@mit.edu, Eric Sandeen , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Piszcz To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from lucidpixels.com ([75.144.35.66]:39402 "EHLO lucidpixels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750739Ab0CAJVG (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:21:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <832C6227-BF34-43C2-8768-1308C00AB17F@sun.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On 2010-02-28, at 07:55, Justin Piszcz wrote: >> === CREATE RAID-0 WITH 11 DISKS > > > Have you tried testing with "nice" numbers of disks in your RAID set (e.g. 8 > disks for RAID-0, 9 for RAID-5, 10 for RAID-6)? The mballoc code is really > much better tuned for power-of-two sized allocations. Hi, Yes, the second system (RAID-5) has 8 disks and it shows the same performance problems with ext4 and not XFS (as shown from previous e-mail), where XFS usually got 500-600MiB/s for writes. http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/e7b189bcaa2c1cb4/ad6c2a54b678cf5f?show_docid=ad6c2a54b678cf5f&pli=1 For the RAID-5 (from earlier testing): <- This one has 8 disks. -o data=writeback,nobarrier: 10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 48.7335 s, 220 MB/s -o data=writeback,nobarrier,nodelalloc: 10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 30.5425 s, 352 MB/s An increase of 132MiB/s. Justin.