From: Roman Mamedov <rm@romanrm.net>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Lukas Pirl <btrfs@lukas-pirl.de>, <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: implications of mixed mode
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:40:28 +0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151127104028.4eb793ba@natsu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5657BE2B.10209@cn.fujitsu.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1077 bytes --]
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:21:31 +0800
Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> And some extra pros and cons due to fixed(4K) small(compared to 16K
> default) nodesize:
>
> + A little higher performance
> node/leaf size is restricted to sectorsize, smaller node/leaf,
> smaller range to lock.
> In our SSD test, operations with high concurrency, the performance is
> overall 10% better than 16K nodesize.
> And in extreme metadata operation case, like high concurrency on
> sequence write into small files, it can be 8 times the performance of
> default 16K nodesize.
This is surprising to read, as I thought 16K is generally faster and that's
why the default value was changed to it from 4K.
https://oss.oracle.com/~mason/blocksizes/
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git/commit/?id=c652e4efb8e2dd76ef1627d8cd649c6af5905902
Seems like the 16K size prevents fragmentation, but since your SSDs do not care
much about fragmentation, that's not adding a benefit for them.
--
With respect,
Roman
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-27 5:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-26 23:54 implications of mixed mode Lukas Pirl
2015-11-27 2:21 ` Qu Wenruo
2015-11-27 5:40 ` Roman Mamedov [this message]
2015-11-27 3:11 ` Duncan
2015-11-27 10:30 ` Lukas Pirl
2015-11-28 6:08 ` Duncan
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=20151127104028.4eb793ba@natsu \
--to=rm@romanrm.net \
--cc=btrfs@lukas-pirl.de \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.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.