From: Duc Vianney <dvianney@us.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>,
mgross <mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com>,
"Griffiths, Richard A" <richard.a.griffiths@intel.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:03:32 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D13A2B4.236E55DD@us.ibm.com> (raw)
Andrew Morton wrote:
>If you have time, please test ext2 and/or reiserfs and/or ext3
>in writeback mode.
I ran IOzone on ext2fs, ext3fs, JFS, and Reiserfs on an SMP 4-way
500MHz, 2.5GB RAM, two 9.1GB SCSI drives. The test partition is 1GB,
test file size is 128MB, test block size is 4KB, and IO threads varies
from 1 to 6. When comparing with other file system for this test
environment, the results on a 2.5.19 SMP kernel show ext3fs is having
performance problem with Writes and in particularly, with Random Write.
I think the BKL contention patch would help ext3fs, but I need to verify
it first.
The following data are throughput in MB/sec obtained from IOzone
benchmark running on all file systems installed with default options.
Kernels 2519smp4 2519smp4 2519smp4 2519smp4
No of threads=1 ext2-1t jfs-1t ext3-1t reiserfs-1t
Initial write 138010 111023 29808 48170
Rewrite 205736 204538 119543 142765
Read 236500 237235 231860 236959
Re-read 242927 243577 240284 242776
Random read 204292 206010 201664 207219
Random write 180144 180461 1090 121676
No of threads=2 ext2-2t jfs-2t ext3-2t reiserfs-2t
Initial write 196477 143395 62248 55260
Rewrite 261641 261441 126604 205076
Read 292566 292796 313562 291434
Re-read 302239 306423 341416 303424
Random read 296152 295430 316966 288584
Random write 253026 251013 958 203358
No of threads=4 ext2-4t jfs-4t ext3-4t reiserfs-4t
Initial write 79513 172302 42051 48782
Rewrite 256568 269840 124912 231395
Read 290599 303669 327066 283793
Re-read 289578 303644 327362 287531
Random read 354011 353455 353806 351671
Random write 279704 279922 2482 250498
No of threads=6 ext2-6t jfs-6t ext3-6t reiserfs-6t
Initial write 98559 69825 59728 15576
Rewrite 274993 286987 126048 232193
Read 330522 326143 332147 326163
Re-read 339672 328890 333094 326725
Random read 348059 346154 347901 344927
Random write 281613 280213 3659 227579
Cheers,
Duc J Vianney, dvianney@us.ibm.com
home page: http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linuxperf/
project page: http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/projects/linuxperf
next reply other threads:[~2002-06-21 22:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-21 22:03 Duc Vianney [this message]
2002-06-21 23:11 ` [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large Andrew Morton
2002-06-22 0:19 ` kwijibo
2002-06-22 8:10 ` kwijibo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-06-23 4:33 Andreas Dilger
2002-06-23 6:00 ` Christopher E. Brown
2002-06-23 6:35 ` [Lse-tech] " William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-23 7:29 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-23 7:36 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-23 7:45 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-23 7:55 ` Christopher E. Brown
2002-06-23 8:11 ` David Lang
2002-06-23 8:31 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-23 16:21 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-06-23 17:06 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-06-20 16:24 [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of s pindles " Gross, Mark
2002-06-20 21:11 ` [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles " Andrew Morton
[not found] <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C057B499E@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com>
2002-06-20 16:10 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-20 20:47 ` John Hawkes
2002-06-19 21:29 mgross
2002-06-20 0:54 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-20 4:09 ` [Lse-tech] " Dave Hansen
2002-06-20 6:03 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-06-20 6:53 ` Andrew Morton
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=3D13A2B4.236E55DD@us.ibm.com \
--to=dvianney@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--cc=richard.a.griffiths@intel.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.