Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

On Mon 2015-05-11 19:34:34, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/11/2015 04:17 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:12:23AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> Umm, are you sure. If "some areas of disk are faster than others" is
> >> still true on todays harddrives, the gaps will decrease the
> >> performance (as you'll "use up" the fast areas more quickly).
> > 
> > It's still true.  The difference between O.D. and I.D. (outer diameter
> > vs inner diameter) LBA's is typically a factor of 2.  This is why
> > "short-stroking" works as a technique,
> 
> That is true, and the effect is not dominant compared to introducing
> a lot of extra seeks.
> 
> > and another way that people
> > doing competitive benchmarking can screw up and produce misleading
> > numbers.
> 
> If you think we screwed up or produced misleading numbers, could you
> please be up front about it instead of making insinuations and
> continuing your tirade against benchmarking and those who do it.

Are not you little harsh with Ted? He was polite.

> The ram disk removes seek overhead and greatly reduces media transfer
> overhead. This does not change things much: it confirms that Tux3 is
> significantly faster than the others at synchronous loads. This is
> apparently true independently of media type, though to be sure SSD
> remains to be tested.
> 
> The really interesting result is how much difference there is between
> filesystems, even on a ram disk. Is it just CPU or is it synchronization
> strategy and lock contention? Does our asynchronous front/back design
> actually help a lot, instead of being a disadvantage as you predicted?
> 
> It is too bad that fs_mark caps number of tasks at 64, because I am
> sure that some embarrassing behavior would emerge at high task counts,
> as with my tests on spinning disk.

I'd call system with 65 tasks doing heavy fsync load at the some time
"embarrassingly misconfigured" :-). It is nice if your filesystem can
stay fast in that case, but...

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html