xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: mysterious dbench results

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: mysterious dbench results
From: Thomas Graichen <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 18 Feb 2001 16:27:39 GMT
Distribution: local
Organization: innominate AG, Berlin, Germany
References: <96nvna$goj$1@mate.bln.innominate.de> <news2mail-96o1pc$6nm$1@mate.bln.innominate.de>
Reply-to: Thomas Graichen <graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.1-XFS (i686))
ok - now tested it on one machine once in smp and once in up mode
and got the same results (very bad dbench results compared to
ext2 or reiserfs) ... so it's not smp related - i'm right now
updating the kernel and will post again - if the problem is
still there ...

t

Thomas Graichen <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> small addition: another test - running pgbench from postgres against
> postgres 7.1beta4 on the same partition with all three filesystems
> on the same machines results in much more logic results: on both
> systems the results are best when xfs is used as filesystem -
> so looks like the below problem is very specific to dbench
> and smp ...

> t

> p.s.: btw. i reproducable and constantly see about 15% better results
>       for the pgbench produced tpc numbers then running the data-
>       base on an xfs filesystem compared to ext2 and reiserfs
>       which looks pretty good i think - this is for 7.1beta4
>       - 7.0.x is worse because of the required fsyncs in it
>       which results in xfs being not as good as the others
>       (at least ext2 which i compared it to)

> Thomas Graichen <graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> i have done some simple dbench test with ext2, reiserfs and xfs - all
>> with the same kernel, same partition and run multiple times ... i did
>> them on one machine (1 p233mmx, 64mb, ide) and the results looked
>> like i expected them to be: all three filesystems are in about the
>> same class with xfs the last - but for xfs the io between the dbench
>> clients are much better balanced (all end close to eachother at the
>> end of the run) - so - as steve once said - this might account for the
>> a bit lower xfs results ... ok - then i ran them on another machine
>> (2 pII333, 128mb, ide) and on this smp machine i now get only about
>> 1/4 of the performance of ext2 and reiserfs with xfs ... it's in this
>> setup absolutely reproducable (~1.5mb/sec vs. ~5.5mb/sec) ... i'll
>> try to check this on another machine too if i find the time on monday
>> - but maybe someone else may try it too - any idea?

>> t

>> p.s.: all this is with 2.4.1-XFS from about a week ago and without
>>       any kio stuff on ide with udma2 enabled

>> -- 
>> thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>                                                          innominate AG
>>                                                   the linux architects
>> tel: +49-30-308806-13   fax: -77             http://www.innominate.com

> -- 
> thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>                                                          innominate AG
>                                                   the linux architects
> tel: +49-30-308806-13   fax: -77             http://www.innominate.com


-- 
thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                                                         innominate AG
                                                  the linux architects
tel: +49-30-308806-13   fax: -77             http://www.innominate.com

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