* EXT4 RAID read performance
@ 2009-09-19 18:12 wbrana
2009-09-19 22:54 ` wbrana
2009-09-19 23:18 ` Theodore Tso
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: wbrana @ 2009-09-19 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hello,
I'm considering replacing Reiser3 filesystem with some newer one.
I ran compilebench benchmark. Read performance is lower with ext4.
Is it expected or is it possible to fix it?
Ext4:
read tree total runs 11 avg 20.47 MB/s (user 0.53s sys 0.74s)
read compiled tree total runs 4 avg 32.94 MB/s (user 0.61s sys 1.17s)
Reiser3:
read tree total runs 11 avg 26.33 MB/s (user 0.54s sys 0.81s)
read compiled tree total runs 4 avg 41.82 MB/s (user 0.62s sys 1.36s)
RAID details:
md8 : active raid10 sda7[0] sdd7[3] sdc7[2] sdb7[1]
62925824 blocks 256K chunks 2 far-copies [4/4] [UUUU]
Ext4:
mkfs.ext4 -E stride=64,stripe-width=128 /dev/md8
mount -t ext4 -o noatime,auto_da_alloc,commit=600 /dev/md8 /mnt/md8
Reiser3:
mount -t reiserfs /dev/md8 /mnt/md8
mount -t reiserfs -o noatime,notail /dev/md8 /dev/md8
Ext4 results:
intial create total runs 10 avg 172.76 MB/s (user 0.43s sys 0.60s)
create total runs 14 avg 36.49 MB/s (user 0.42s sys 0.59s)
patch total runs 15 avg 15.16 MB/s (user 0.24s sys 0.49s)
compile total runs 14 avg 64.07 MB/s (user 0.10s sys 0.59s)
clean total runs 10 avg 393.43 MB/s (user 0.02s sys 0.06s)
read tree total runs 11 avg 20.47 MB/s (user 0.53s sys 0.74s)
read compiled tree total runs 4 avg 32.94 MB/s (user 0.61s sys 1.17s)
delete tree total runs 10 avg 2.51 seconds (user 0.24s sys 0.42s)
delete compiled tree total runs 4 avg 2.63 seconds (user 0.28s sys 0.50s)
stat tree total runs 11 avg 1.99 seconds (user 0.23s sys 0.18s)
stat compiled tree total runs 7 avg 2.11 seconds (user 0.27s sys 0.21s)
Reiser3 results:
intial create total runs 10 avg 82.74 MB/s (user 0.45s sys 1.13s)
create total runs 14 avg 28.54 MB/s (user 0.45s sys 1.19s)
patch total runs 15 avg 10.91 MB/s (user 0.24s sys 0.86s)
compile total runs 14 avg 47.49 MB/s (user 0.10s sys 1.27s)
clean total runs 10 avg 270.21 MB/s (user 0.02s sys 0.15s)
read tree total runs 11 avg 26.33 MB/s (user 0.54s sys 0.81s)
read compiled tree total runs 4 avg 41.82 MB/s (user 0.62s sys 1.36s)
delete tree total runs 10 avg 3.38 seconds (user 0.24s sys 0.72s)
delete compiled tree total runs 4 avg 4.14 seconds (user 0.27s sys 0.88s)
stat tree total runs 11 avg 2.09 seconds (user 0.22s sys 0.18s)
stat compiled tree total runs 7 avg 2.27 seconds (user 0.25s sys 0.21s)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: EXT4 RAID read performance 2009-09-19 18:12 EXT4 RAID read performance wbrana @ 2009-09-19 22:54 ` wbrana 2009-09-19 23:18 ` Theodore Tso 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: wbrana @ 2009-09-19 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel creating tar of compiled kernel takes much longer with ext4 time tar c linux-2.6.31 | cat >/dev/null reiser3: real 0m11.425s user 0m0.229s sys 0m1.586s ext4: real 0m23.942s user 0m0.183s sys 0m1.440s partition was remounted before test > > RAID details: > > md8 : active raid10 sda7[0] sdd7[3] sdc7[2] sdb7[1] > 62925824 blocks 256K chunks 2 far-copies [4/4] [UUUU] > > Ext4: > mkfs.ext4 -E stride=64,stripe-width=128 /dev/md8 > mount -t ext4 -o noatime,auto_da_alloc,commit=600 /dev/md8 /mnt/md8 > > Reiser3: > mkfs.reiserfs /dev/md8 > mount -t reiserfs -o noatime,notail /dev/md8 /mnt/md8 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: EXT4 RAID read performance 2009-09-19 18:12 EXT4 RAID read performance wbrana 2009-09-19 22:54 ` wbrana @ 2009-09-19 23:18 ` Theodore Tso 2009-09-26 14:27 ` wbrana 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Theodore Tso @ 2009-09-19 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: wbrana; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 08:12:31PM +0200, wbrana@gmail.com wrote: > > I'm considering replacing Reiser3 filesystem with some newer one. > I ran compilebench benchmark. Read performance is lower with ext4. > Is it expected or is it possible to fix it? You didn't say which version of the kernel you are using, which could be important when asking these sorts of questions about potential performance problems. However, in this case, I suspect the issue is the nature of how compilebench is structured. Compilebench does the following which makes it work particularly well for filesystems like reiserfs and btrfs, and not so much for ext3 and ext4. Quoting from the compilebench web page: compilebench starts by putting these lists of file names into an order native to the filesystem it is working on. The files are created in sorted order based on the filename, and then readdir is used to find the order the filesystem uses for storing the names. After this initial phase, the filesystem native order is used for creates, patches and compile. Deleting, reading and stating the trees are done in readdir order. The key here is that it reads the tree in readdir order. Normally, when you compile a kernel, the order in which you read and write files is controlled by the Makefile; you don't get to read and write the files in the order which just happens to be the most convenient for the file system's b-tree hash algorithm. Now, there are some workloads which compilebench might accurately model --- for example, tar'ing up a directory. However, despite the name of the benchmark, it doesn't accurately model a kernel compile. If you only care about compilebench numbers, you can try creating the file system with the dir_index feature disabled. This is the feature that speeds up random access to directories; unfortunately, it means that when you read files in readdir order, it causes extra random reads to th einode table. However, if your real-life workload is one where file reads are always magically in readdir order, dir_index adds overhead without adding any benefit. The bottom line is that I'm not terribly worried about trying to improve ext4's performance on compilebench, since I don't believe it's a benchmark that models realistic real-life workloads. Regards, - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: EXT4 RAID read performance 2009-09-19 23:18 ` Theodore Tso @ 2009-09-26 14:27 ` wbrana 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: wbrana @ 2009-09-26 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Tso, linux-kernel On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > You didn't say which version of the kernel you are using, which could > be important when asking these sorts of questions about potential > performance problems. > 2.6.31 > > Now, there are some workloads which compilebench might accurately > model --- for example, tar'ing up a directory. However, despite the > name of the benchmark, it doesn't accurately model a kernel compile. > You are right. I created simple benchmark which does real compilation of kernel with following results: reiser3 16925 msec: tar xf /usr/src/linux.tar 119173 msec: make -j4 all ext4 14296 msec: tar xf /usr/src/linux.tar 116692 msec: make -j4 all btrfs 13493 msec: tar xf /usr/src/linux.tar 116015 msec: make -j4 all MD RAID10-f2 with 256 kB chunk size was used in all cases. Source code: http://www.sendspace.com/file/fmikv7 It depends on Qt Core library. There are hard-coded paths. It can delete important data if it is started without customization !!! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <dmcHr-ep-7@gated-at.bofh.it>]
[parent not found: <1cddc13e-c147-43e0-9b40-5e3f07941b27@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>]
* Re: EXT4 RAID read performance [not found] ` <1cddc13e-c147-43e0-9b40-5e3f07941b27@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> @ 2009-09-20 10:40 ` wbrana 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: wbrana @ 2009-09-20 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 19, 7:20 pm, wbr...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Ext4: >> read tree total runs 11 avg 20.47 MB/s (user 0.53s sys 0.74s) >> read compiled tree total runs 4 avg 32.94 MB/s (user 0.61s sys 1.17s) >> >> Reiser3: >> read tree total runs 11 avg 26.33 MB/s (user 0.54s sys 0.81s) >> read compiled tree total runs 4 avg 41.82 MB/s (user 0.62s sys 1.36s) > > It would be interesting to also compare against BTRFS if on 2.6.30 or > newer, if you can. > BTRFS 2.6.31 mkfs.btrfs -d raid10 -m raid10 /dev/sda7 /dev/sdb7 /dev/sdc7 /dev/sdd7 mount -t btrfs -o noatime /dev/sda7 /mnt/md8 intial create total runs 10 avg 158.85 MB/s (user 0.45s sys 0.93s) create total runs 14 avg 32.67 MB/s (user 0.44s sys 0.90s) patch total runs 15 avg 8.91 MB/s (user 0.22s sys 0.84s) compile total runs 14 avg 61.02 MB/s (user 0.09s sys 0.50s) clean total runs 10 avg 245.12 MB/s (user 0.02s sys 0.18s) read tree total runs 11 avg 14.03 MB/s (user 0.48s sys 0.87s) read compiled tree total runs 4 avg 29.14 MB/s (user 0.54s sys 1.37s) delete tree total runs 10 avg 9.77 seconds (user 0.28s sys 1.37s) delete compiled tree total runs 4 avg 11.91 seconds (user 0.31s sys 1.60s) stat tree total runs 11 avg 4.36 seconds (user 0.25s sys 0.33s) stat compiled tree total runs 7 avg 5.29 seconds (user 0.29s sys 0.37s) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-09-26 14:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-09-19 18:12 EXT4 RAID read performance wbrana
2009-09-19 22:54 ` wbrana
2009-09-19 23:18 ` Theodore Tso
2009-09-26 14:27 ` wbrana
[not found] <dmcHr-ep-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1cddc13e-c147-43e0-9b40-5e3f07941b27@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
2009-09-20 10:40 ` wbrana
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.