From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Sooman Jeong <77smart@hanyang.ac.kr>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com>
Subject: Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:07:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121023000725.GA10990@elf.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1350905803450.1936.166.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr>
Hi!
> As requested, I compared performance of VFAT with f2fs on SD card.
> Following is summary of the measurement.
Thanks.
> VFAT shows better performance on both random write+fsync and buffered-sequential write than f2fs.
> However, on buffered-random and sequential write+fsync, f2fs still exhibits better performance
> than other filesystems.
>
>
> * buffered write (1GB file), 4KByte write
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Desktop PC Galaxy-S3
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> sequential (MB/s) random (IOPS) sequential (MB/s) random (IOPS)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
> F2FS 10.6 2675 6.9 1682
> VFAT 7.3 1108 7.3 1075
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, f2fs is bit faster on desktop PC and a bit slower on S3. Good.
> * write + fsync (100MB file), 4KByte write
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Desktop PC Galaxy-S3
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> sequential (KB/s) random (IOPS) sequential (KB/s) random (IOPS)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> F2FS 1057.9 240 772.3 184
> VFAT 356.5 260 474.4 373
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, random access on VFAT is a lot faster on S3 (and only very
a bit on PC). Any idea why results are so different between PC and S3?
Does F2FS need significantly more CPU? Does F2FS need significantly
more RAM? (Booting PC with low mem= option my answer that).
Anyway, it looks like F2FS is pretty fast filesystem...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-23 0:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-16 4:07 Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance Sooman Jeong
2012-10-16 6:58 ` Namjae Jeon
2012-10-17 4:44 ` Sooman Jeong
2012-10-20 19:22 ` Pavel Machek
2012-10-21 9:09 ` Vyacheslav Dubeyko
2012-10-21 10:26 ` Pavel Machek
2012-10-22 11:36 ` Sooman Jeong
2012-10-23 0:07 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2012-10-23 17:10 ` Vyacheslav Dubeyko
2012-10-30 15:36 ` Pavel Machek
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=20121023000725.GA10990@elf.ucw.cz \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=77smart@hanyang.ac.kr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=slava@dubeyko.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.