xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2

To: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: lmdd performance results XFS vs. Ext2
From: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:41:30 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <393EFB9A.E34181FD@xxxxxxx>; from ananth@xxxxxxx on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 06:49:14PM -0700
References: <393EFB9A.E34181FD@xxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 06:49:14PM -0700, Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan wrote:
> Results of write performance tests:
> ----------------------------------
>  
> Sequential write using lmdd, file size is ~209MB on a 2 CPU system with
> total memory of 64M. The experiment is run over varying write-size from
> 1K to 1024K, 3 times for each block-size. This shows

>  
> 1. Ext2 is well tuned (hardly any variation in 3 runs of each blocksize)!

Please not that 2.3 itself has significant performance regressions for
huge bulk writes (there were several threads on linux-kernel about that).
Partly the still broken page cache balance is probably to blame, for 
other things the elevator (Jens Axboe's per device elevator patches seem
to cause a huge speedup) 
With tuning 2.3.99pre2, an very old kernel, you might be duplicating
work that others already did.


-Andi

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>