From: alex chen Subject: Re: A doubt on journal_async_commit option Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:47:46 +0800 Message-ID: <548E59E2.3080001@huawei.com> References: <548A8534.1050606@huawei.com> <20141212145443.GB17783@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Kara , , Joseph Qi To: "Theodore Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:50772 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751353AbaLODsH (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Dec 2014 22:48:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141212145443.GB17783@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2014/12/12 22:54, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 02:03:32PM +0800, alex chen wrote: >> This commit 0e3d2a6313(ext4: Fix async commit mode to be safe by using >> a barrier) show that using journal_async_commit feature has a 50% >> performance improvement. But I tested in SUSE Linux Enterprise Server >> 11 SP3(linux kernel 3.0.93) and Red Hat Enterprise linux 6.4(linux >> kernel 2.6.32), the result show this feature has no performance >> improvement. >> My test command: >> mount /dev/sdb /mnt/sdb >> ./fs_mark -d /mnt/sdb/ -s 10240 -n 1000 >> umount >> >> mount /dev/sdb /mnt/sdb -o journal_async_commit >> ./fs_mark -d /mnt/sdb/ -s 10240 -n 1000 >> umount >> >> My test result: >> FSUse% Count Size Files/sec App Overhead >> 6 1000 10240 42.1 10671 >> vs. >> -o journal_async_commit >> FSUse% Count Size Files/sec App Overhead >> 6 1000 10240 63.9 10625 > > Um, the files per second went up from 42.1 to 63.9 --- that's a 50% > improvement, yes? > > - Ted Yes, I understand it. Thank you! > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >