Re: [PATCH] new data logging and quota patches available

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Manuel Krause wrote:

> On 03/11/2003 09:46 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> [ slow down between 2.419 data logging and 2.4.21-pre data logging ]
>>
>> Ok, could you please apply the search_reada-4 patch I sent and do your
>> benchmark again on 2.4.21-preX with these mount options:
>>
>> mount -o alloc=old_way:concentrating_formatted_nodes,notail
>>
>> It's about 10% faster here, but my dataset is slightly different.
>>
>
> I did it and also tested without the alloc mount option from above.
>
> Here is the overview including the "old" things to refer to. The 
> dataset didn't change in the meantime.
>
> (old)
> 2.4.21-pre5 data=ordered                              [A]
>       first run  second run  diff  average    rate
> real  9m05.375s   9m23.272s  3.2%  9m14.324s  6.63MB/s
> user  0m01.440s   0m01.730s
> sys   1m11.640s   1m08.870s
>
> 2.4.19 data=ordered                                   [B]
>       first run  second run  diff  average    rate
> real  7m46.287s   7m34.031s  2.7%  7m40.159s  7.99MB/s
> user  0m01.520s   0m01.580s
> sys   1m21.920s   1m21.300s
>
>
> (new)
> 2.4.21-pre5 [A] + search_reada-4 +
> mount -o noatime,alloc=old_way:concentrating_formatted_nodes,notail [C]
>
>       first run second run  diff   average    rate
> real  7m59.631s  7m57.167s  0.52%  7m58.399s  7.68MB/s
> user  0m01.580s  0m01.250s
> sys   1m11.200s  1m09.520s
>
>
> 2.4.21-pre5 [A] + search_reada-4 without special mount options
> (is: mount -o noatime,notail,data=ordered)                          [D]
>
>       first run second run  diff   average    rate
> real  7m57.365s  7m55.638s  0.36%  7m56.502s  7.71MB/s
> user  0m01.510s  0m01.570s
> sys   1m07.730s  1m08.020s
>
>
> * What means a performance increase of 2.4.21-pre5 with [D] vs. without
>    search_reada-4 [A] by  ~16%  !!!
> * The difference of the special mount option [C] against my default [D]
>   is about 0.3%  ;-))
> * With search_reada-4  2.4.21-pre5 [D] only looses ~3.6% throughput rate
>    against 2.4.19 [B]
>  ...in this test.
>
>
> Do you think the group-alloc-4 patch would increase throughput with 
> this test?
>
> Thank you for your great work,
>
> Manuel
>
>
>
>
>
Can you state what test is being performed, what the hardware is, etc.  
In general, we need benchmarks that can be collected onto webpages and 
reviewed a year or two later when we can barely remember why we did or 
did not do some design decision.

-- 
Hans