From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] IO-less dirty throttling v12
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:39:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111020033930.GA22746@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111003134228.090592370@intel.com>
FYI, a simple sequential write comparison between the common filesystems.
For a newly created filesystem, btrfs is super fast! The interesting thing is,
btrfs performs best in the dirty_thresh=100M cases, rather than the 1G/8G cases.
btrfs also performs equally well in the 1dd, 2dd, 10dd, 100dd cases. However
the tests are blind to the possibility of long term fragmentation.
btrfs ext3 ext4 xfs
------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
56.55 -45.8% 30.66 -10.8% 50.42 -26.1% 41.76 thresh=1G/X-100dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
56.11 -37.2% 35.24 +0.2% 56.23 -13.9% 48.34 thresh=1G/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
56.21 -22.5% 43.58 +3.4% 58.12 -6.9% 52.36 thresh=1G/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
58.23 -35.9% 37.34 -20.2% 46.45 -23.5% 44.53 thresh=100M/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
58.43 -23.9% 44.44 -3.1% 56.60 -4.4% 55.89 thresh=100M/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
58.53 -28.7% 41.70 -7.5% 54.14 -12.7% 51.11 thresh=100M/X-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
54.37 -40.8% 32.21 -34.6% 35.58 -42.9% 31.07 thresh=8M/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-8M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
56.12 -19.1% 45.37 +0.5% 56.39 -1.2% 55.44 thresh=8M/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-8M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
56.22 -22.3% 43.71 -8.8% 51.26 -15.4% 47.59 thresh=8M/X-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-8M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
510.77 -30.6% 354.27 -8.9% 465.19 -16.2% 428.07 TOTAL write_bw
Below is a more extensive run on virtually the same kernel.
In the thresh=8G case, ext4 performs noticeably better than others,
and the number of dd tasks is no longer relevant with big enough memory.
btrfs ext3 ext4 xfs
------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
92.89 -28.6% 66.36 +7.8% 100.10 -2.7% 90.41 thresh=8G/X-100dd-1M-32p-32768M-8192M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
89.69 -19.7% 72.00 +18.7% 106.42 +2.2% 91.67 thresh=8G/X-10dd-1M-32p-32768M-8192M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
92.26 -18.7% 75.01 +16.3% 107.26 +1.4% 93.51 thresh=8G/X-1dd-1M-32p-32768M-8192M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
89.96 -16.8% 74.87 +20.7% 108.62 +3.1% 92.76 thresh=8G/X-2dd-1M-32p-32768M-8192M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
note: the above 8G cases run on another test box!
60.29 -47.0% 31.96 -14.6% 51.47 -27.9% 43.44 thresh=1G/X-100dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
58.80 -38.5% 36.19 -4.4% 56.19 -15.3% 49.83 thresh=1G/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
58.53 -23.1% 45.03 -0.2% 58.41 -10.0% 52.70 thresh=1G/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
58.01 -35.0% 37.69 -4.1% 55.62 -12.4% 50.82 thresh=400M-300M/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-400M:300M-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
57.69 -26.0% 42.69 +1.8% 58.71 -2.4% 56.33 thresh=400M-300M/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-400M:300M-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
57.13 -32.4% 38.63 +2.5% 58.58 -6.8% 53.27 thresh=400M-300M/X-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-400M:300M-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
56.97 -33.3% 38.01 -3.2% 55.14 -9.3% 51.67 thresh=400M/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-400M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
57.78 -22.3% 44.90 +0.6% 58.14 -0.7% 57.35 thresh=400M/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-400M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
56.12 -27.3% 40.81 +2.4% 57.49 -4.9% 53.36 thresh=400M/X-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-400M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
59.39 -36.0% 38.02 -20.0% 47.50 -24.4% 44.89 thresh=100M/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
58.68 -23.0% 45.20 -0.9% 58.18 -1.1% 58.06 thresh=100M/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
58.92 -27.9% 42.50 -5.3% 55.79 -11.8% 51.94 thresh=100M/X-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
57.12 -41.1% 33.63 -36.0% 36.58 -43.6% 32.19 thresh=8M/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-8M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
59.29 -18.5% 48.30 -3.3% 57.35 -5.8% 55.86 thresh=8M/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-8M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
59.23 -21.0% 46.77 -10.8% 52.82 -17.3% 48.96 thresh=8M/X-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-8M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
1238.75 -27.5% 898.56 +0.1% 1240.38 -8.9% 1129.01 TOTAL write_bw
Thanks,
Fengguang
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] IO-less dirty throttling v12
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:39:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111020033930.GA22746@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111003134228.090592370@intel.com>
FYI, a simple sequential write comparison between the common filesystems.
For a newly created filesystem, btrfs is super fast! The interesting thing is,
btrfs performs best in the dirty_thresh=100M cases, rather than the 1G/8G cases.
btrfs also performs equally well in the 1dd, 2dd, 10dd, 100dd cases. However
the tests are blind to the possibility of long term fragmentation.
btrfs ext3 ext4 xfs
------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
56.55 -45.8% 30.66 -10.8% 50.42 -26.1% 41.76 thresh=1G/X-100dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
56.11 -37.2% 35.24 +0.2% 56.23 -13.9% 48.34 thresh=1G/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
56.21 -22.5% 43.58 +3.4% 58.12 -6.9% 52.36 thresh=1G/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
58.23 -35.9% 37.34 -20.2% 46.45 -23.5% 44.53 thresh=100M/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
58.43 -23.9% 44.44 -3.1% 56.60 -4.4% 55.89 thresh=100M/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
58.53 -28.7% 41.70 -7.5% 54.14 -12.7% 51.11 thresh=100M/X-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
54.37 -40.8% 32.21 -34.6% 35.58 -42.9% 31.07 thresh=8M/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-8M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
56.12 -19.1% 45.37 +0.5% 56.39 -1.2% 55.44 thresh=8M/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-8M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
56.22 -22.3% 43.71 -8.8% 51.26 -15.4% 47.59 thresh=8M/X-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-8M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6a+
510.77 -30.6% 354.27 -8.9% 465.19 -16.2% 428.07 TOTAL write_bw
Below is a more extensive run on virtually the same kernel.
In the thresh=8G case, ext4 performs noticeably better than others,
and the number of dd tasks is no longer relevant with big enough memory.
btrfs ext3 ext4 xfs
------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
92.89 -28.6% 66.36 +7.8% 100.10 -2.7% 90.41 thresh=8G/X-100dd-1M-32p-32768M-8192M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
89.69 -19.7% 72.00 +18.7% 106.42 +2.2% 91.67 thresh=8G/X-10dd-1M-32p-32768M-8192M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
92.26 -18.7% 75.01 +16.3% 107.26 +1.4% 93.51 thresh=8G/X-1dd-1M-32p-32768M-8192M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
89.96 -16.8% 74.87 +20.7% 108.62 +3.1% 92.76 thresh=8G/X-2dd-1M-32p-32768M-8192M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
note: the above 8G cases run on another test box!
60.29 -47.0% 31.96 -14.6% 51.47 -27.9% 43.44 thresh=1G/X-100dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
58.80 -38.5% 36.19 -4.4% 56.19 -15.3% 49.83 thresh=1G/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
58.53 -23.1% 45.03 -0.2% 58.41 -10.0% 52.70 thresh=1G/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
58.01 -35.0% 37.69 -4.1% 55.62 -12.4% 50.82 thresh=400M-300M/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-400M:300M-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
57.69 -26.0% 42.69 +1.8% 58.71 -2.4% 56.33 thresh=400M-300M/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-400M:300M-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
57.13 -32.4% 38.63 +2.5% 58.58 -6.8% 53.27 thresh=400M-300M/X-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-400M:300M-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
56.97 -33.3% 38.01 -3.2% 55.14 -9.3% 51.67 thresh=400M/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-400M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
57.78 -22.3% 44.90 +0.6% 58.14 -0.7% 57.35 thresh=400M/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-400M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
56.12 -27.3% 40.81 +2.4% 57.49 -4.9% 53.36 thresh=400M/X-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-400M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
59.39 -36.0% 38.02 -20.0% 47.50 -24.4% 44.89 thresh=100M/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
58.68 -23.0% 45.20 -0.9% 58.18 -1.1% 58.06 thresh=100M/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
58.92 -27.9% 42.50 -5.3% 55.79 -11.8% 51.94 thresh=100M/X-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
57.12 -41.1% 33.63 -36.0% 36.58 -43.6% 32.19 thresh=8M/X-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-8M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
59.29 -18.5% 48.30 -3.3% 57.35 -5.8% 55.86 thresh=8M/X-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-8M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
59.23 -21.0% 46.77 -10.8% 52.82 -17.3% 48.96 thresh=8M/X-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-8M:10-3.1.0-rc8-ioless6+
1238.75 -27.5% 898.56 +0.1% 1240.38 -8.9% 1129.01 TOTAL write_bw
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-20 3:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-03 13:42 [PATCH 00/11] IO-less dirty throttling v12 Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` [PATCH 01/11] writeback: account per-bdi accumulated dirtied pages Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` [PATCH 02/11] writeback: dirty position control Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` [PATCH 03/11] writeback: add bg_threshold parameter to __bdi_update_bandwidth() Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` [PATCH 04/11] writeback: dirty rate control Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` [PATCH 05/11] writeback: stabilize bdi->dirty_ratelimit Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` [PATCH 06/11] writeback: per task dirty rate limit Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` [PATCH 07/11] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages() Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` [PATCH 08/11] writeback: limit max dirty pause time Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` [PATCH 09/11] writeback: control " Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` [PATCH 10/11] writeback: dirty position control - bdi reserve area Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` [PATCH 11/11] writeback: per-bdi background threshold Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:59 ` [PATCH 00/11] IO-less dirty throttling v12 Wu Fengguang
2011-10-03 13:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-05 1:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-05 1:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-04 19:52 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-04 19:52 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-05 13:56 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-05 13:56 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-05 15:16 ` Andi Kleen
2011-10-05 15:16 ` Andi Kleen
2011-10-10 12:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-10 12:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-10 13:07 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-10 13:07 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-10 13:10 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] nfs: writeback pages wait queue Wu Fengguang
2011-10-10 13:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-10 13:11 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/2] nfs: scale writeback threshold proportional to dirty threshold Wu Fengguang
2011-10-10 13:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-18 8:53 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-18 8:53 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-18 8:53 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-18 8:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-18 8:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-18 8:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 2:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 2:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-18 8:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] nfs: writeback pages wait queue Wu Fengguang
2011-10-18 8:51 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 3:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 3:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-10 14:28 ` [PATCH 00/11] IO-less dirty throttling v12 Wu Fengguang
2011-10-10 14:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-17 3:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-17 3:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 3:39 ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2011-10-20 3:39 ` Wu Fengguang
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=20111020033930.GA22746@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arighi@develer.com \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.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.