[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Some baseline tests on new hardware (was Re: [PATCH] xfs: optimise C

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Some baseline tests on new hardware (was Re: [PATCH] xfs: optimise CIL insertion during transaction commit [RFC])
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 17:22:43 +0200
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=w1ckXj3Rlj93BBRbyD9a9i7yw5tCmGPYmmW1uiYIApI=; b=Ma80nvHCfCMdTn4o5lTqrHisvyskWlxbBbJVv+He11pRnjGU8IFLaIlSm74eVs7HIW dMo45j4qJfwV5qWHOmAgITT9P60vGDgFmfFxwWQNf925l5qX2485wcUNgCsy1N+soc+r qy/bx0t7vdx+f1AIkmsnxFvGXpX0ZIaVSLjon6iZDCtvUkdak/UY6bucdUYE5AtXcMbg X9EGP/mN6IjE8w/ESaWVvpqIYtH1oB1XKSZbDsf1ryOEpz4xB4AL00+8Zz5R3styi9cZ DMX2P56ekT86yZJZ4im+sRqtfSfeqMYFRaAiEuwNTb1lYLJgO+8t03Kb4uvCOaB+dtz2 PMDA==
In-reply-to: <20130708135953.GF5988@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1372657476-9241-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130708124453.GC3438@dastard> <20130708135953.GF5988@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6
Il 08/07/2013 15:59, Jan Kara ha scritto:
On Mon 08-07-13 22:44:53, Dave Chinner wrote:
<snipped some nice XFS results ;)>
So, lets look at ext4 vs btrfs vs XFS at 16-way (this is on the
3.10-cil kernel I've been testing XFS on):

            create               walk           unlink
         time(s)   rate         time(s)         time(s)
xfs       222   266k+-32k         170             295
ext4      978    54k+- 2k         325            2053
btrfs    1223    47k+- 8k         366           12000(*)

(*) Estimate based on a removal rate of 18.5 minutes for the first
4.8 million inodes.

Basically, neither btrfs or ext4 have any concurrency scaling to
demonstrate, and unlinks on btrfs a just plain woeful.
   Thanks for posting the numbers. There isn't anyone seriously testing ext4
SMP scalability AFAIK so it's not surprising it sucks.

Funny, if I well remember Google guys switched android from yaffs2 to ext4 due to its superiority on SMP :)


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