From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
To: Abhishek Rai <abhishekrai@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ken Chen <kenchen@google.com>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clustering indirect blocks in Ext3
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:47:24 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071118204724.GS19691@waste.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d9885f0f0711180752o71561745h51f2a18d09709e27@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 07:52:36AM -0800, Abhishek Rai wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion Matt.
>
> It took me some time to get compilebench working due to the known
> issue with drop_caches due to circular lock dependency between
> j_list_lock and inode_lock (compilebench triggers drop_caches quite
> frequently). Here are the results for compilebench run with options
> "-i 30 -r 30". I repeated the test 5 times on each of vanilla and mc
> configurations.
>
> Setup: 4 cpu, 8GB RAM, 400GB disk.
>
> Average vanilla results
> ==========================================================================
> intial create total runs 30 avg 46.49 MB/s (user 1.12s sys 2.25s)
> create total runs 5 avg 12.90 MB/s (user 1.08s sys 1.97s)
> patch total runs 4 avg 8.70 MB/s (user 0.60s sys 2.31s)
> compile total runs 7 avg 21.44 MB/s (user 0.32s sys 2.95s)
> clean total runs 4 avg 59.91 MB/s (user 0.05s sys 0.26s)
> read tree total runs 2 avg 21.85 MB/s (user 1.12s sys 2.89s)
> read compiled tree total runs 1 avg 23.47 MB/s (user 1.45s sys 4.89s)
> delete tree total runs 2 avg 13.18 seconds (user 0.64s sys 1.02s)
> no runs for delete compiled tree
> stat tree total runs 4 avg 4.76 seconds (user 0.70s sys 0.50s)
> stat compiled tree total runs 1 avg 7.84 seconds (user 0.74s sys 0.54s)
>
> Average metaclustering results
> ==========================================================================
> intial create total runs 30 avg 45.04 MB/s (user 1.13s sys 2.42s)
> create total runs 5 avg 15.64 MB/s (user 1.08s sys 1.98s)
> patch total runs 4 avg 10.50 MB/s (user 0.61s sys 3.11s)
> compile total runs 7 avg 28.07 MB/s (user 0.33s sys 4.06s)
> clean total runs 4 avg 83.27 MB/s (user 0.04s sys 0.27s)
> read tree total runs 2 avg 21.17 MB/s (user 1.15s sys 2.91s)
> read compiled tree total runs 1 avg 22.79 MB/s (user 1.38s sys 4.89s)
> delete tree total runs 2 avg 9.23 seconds (user 0.62s sys 1.01s)
> no runs for delete compiled tree
> stat tree total runs 4 avg 4.72 seconds (user 0.71s sys 0.50s)
> stat compiled tree total runs 1 avg 6.50 seconds (user 0.79s sys 0.53s)
>
> Overall, metaclustering does better than vanilla except in a few cases.
Well it strikes me as about half up and half down, but the ups are
indeed much more substantial. Looks quite promising.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-18 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-16 5:02 [PATCH] Clustering indirect blocks in Ext3 Abhishek Rai
2007-11-16 7:02 ` Andrew Morton
2007-11-16 7:37 ` Matt Mackall
2007-11-18 15:52 ` Abhishek Rai
2007-11-18 20:47 ` Matt Mackall [this message]
2007-11-19 10:34 ` Kyungmin Park
2007-11-20 20:25 ` John Stoffel
2007-11-16 11:28 ` Andreas Dilger
2007-11-16 21:11 ` Theodore Tso
2007-11-17 0:25 ` Abhishek Rai
2007-11-17 2:58 ` Theodore Tso
2007-11-17 8:58 ` Abhishek Rai
2007-12-21 14:15 ` Abhishek Rai
2008-01-10 21:17 ` Abhishek Rai
2008-01-11 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2008-01-12 0:04 ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-12 6:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2008-01-13 5:06 ` Abhishek Rai
2007-11-16 22:27 ` Abhishek Rai
[not found] <9q1CT-82L-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9q3v2-2Br-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9qgLE-7ds-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9qjJx-3wE-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9qm4D-70Q-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9CQTt-7cr-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9KcYS-46E-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
2008-01-11 14:12 ` Bodo Eggert
2008-01-11 14:49 ` Abhishek Rai
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071118204724.GS19691@waste.org \
--to=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=abhishekrai@google.com \
--cc=adilger@sun.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kenchen@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikew@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.