From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: [PATCH] new data logging and quota patches available Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:25:16 +0300 Message-ID: <3E6F899C.8090108@namesys.com> References: <1045870331.16048.325.camel@tiny.suse.com> <200302221341.23799.Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de> <1045926958.16042.366.camel@tiny.suse.com> <1045930351.16042.377.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E581AD7.30000@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <3E581E07.3050407@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <1046020695.16048.409.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E59787F.2030009@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <1046095718.16047.440.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E5A5A31.5070008@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <3E5A9A7A.5040806@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <3E5F196C.1040001@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <1046439149.2163.21.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E66B73D.6030008@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <1046922372.2161.275.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E66C88E.40207@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <3E69FA70.5030601@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <1047227975.8215.150.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E6B74C0.5050702@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <1047230647.8219.161.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E6B7C61.9050405@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <1047415578.8215.383.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E6F4777.1040802@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <3E6F4777.1040802@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Manuel Krause Cc: Chris Mason , reiserfs-list 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