Re: Some baseline tests on new hardware (was Re: [PATCH] xfs: optimise CIL insertion during transaction commit [RFC])

[Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@xxxxxxxxx>]

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 :)
Marco