Re: reiserfs v3 vs v4 bonnie++ benchmarks

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Mihai RUSU wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>V3:
>>>Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
>>>                   -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
>>>Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
>>>dizzywork        1G 13459  71 62922  20 26061   6 15687  83 54593   8 191.0   0
>>>                   ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
>>>                   -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
>>>files:max:min        /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
>>>256:64000:16000/256  1287  27   165   2 11382  77  1230  25    63   1   253   2
>>>
>>>V4:
>>>Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
>>>                   -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
>>>Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
>>>dizzywork        1G 16926  87 52469  15 26474  11 16759  85 55349   9 166.6   1
>>>                   ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
>>>                   -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
>>>files:max:min        /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
>>>256:64000:16000/256   863  40  1243  16  4219  47   873  46    81   1  3980  48
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>Interesting issues:
>>>- - see that the "sequential writes" test using write with a 8192 bytes 
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>which of the above is this, the sequential output test?
>>    
>>
>
>This one:
>62922 for v3 and 52469 for v4
>  
>
what is the amount of ram vs. the amount written?  If you write 10x the 
ram, does the performance loss go away?

>  
>
>>>buffer is lower with v4 than with v3 (and it was like that in all tests)
>>>- - both reiserfs v3 and v4 have almost same number of "little" files 
>>>created in both sequential or random order but... reiser4 is much slower 
>>>than v3 here
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>are little files = 64k?
>>    
>>
>
>In my oppinion yes (I consider not a small file after 256 kbytes or so). 
>I dont think that "definitions" matter here, but numbers do :) Im trying 
>to test a setup as close as it can be to my real setup (huge FS partitions 
>with millions of files, web files with 32kbytes average size).
>
>  
>
>>I need to take the time to read through bonnie++ so that I can really 
>>understand it, sigh, not today...
>>    
>>
>
>That would be good couse Im not sure I completly understand it myself heh.
>
>  
>
>>It does seem clear though that V4 consumes too much CPU for creates and 
>>writes, and that we are CPU bound for this task.  After we release it 
>>Zam will tweak it more, and I will review the write code again.  He is 
>>tweaking the linux profiler to collect better statistics on parent callers.
>>
>>Thanks for gathering this data.
>>    
>>
>
>You're welcomed.
>
>- -- 
>Mihai RUSU                                    Email: dizzy@roedu.net
>GPG : http://dizzy.roedu.net/dizzy-gpg.txt    WWW: http://dizzy.roedu.net
>                       "Linux is obsolete" -- AST
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQFATfx9PZzOzrZY/1QRAlCqAJ9dVdk9tDbrRTmBn+oEP0NHL1RaOQCgy+ag
>MHOxu6aUewDIpg1X4Jq3Y6k=
>=I8Ya
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Hans