Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'

Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'

[Adrian Ulrich]

Hi,

If anyone is interested:
 I ran a small filesystem benchmark on my x86 PC.

 It includes:

 On Linux:
  * Reiser4
  * ReiserFS
  * Ext3

 On Solaris (Using 'gnusolaris'[.org] -> Alpha 2)
  * UFS
  * ZFS


 NetApp's 'Postmark' was used to perform the tests.
 (Postmark simulates something like Mail/NNTP-Server load)

Results:
  http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt


(I used the *default* mkfs/mount options for all filesystems.
 If you like, i can re-run the test with non-default parameters)


 -- Adrian

Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'

[Łukasz Mierzwa]

Dnia Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:59:43 +0100, Adrian Ulrich  
<reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> napisa³:

> If anyone is interested:
>  I ran a small filesystem benchmark on my x86 PC.
>
>  It includes:
>
>  On Linux:
>   * Reiser4
>   * ReiserFS
>   * Ext3
>
>  On Solaris (Using 'gnusolaris'[.org] -> Alpha 2)
>   * UFS
>   * ZFS
>
>
>  NetApp's 'Postmark' was used to perform the tests.
>  (Postmark simulates something like Mail/NNTP-Server load)
>
> Results:
>   http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt

Is it just me or did You also found out that reiser4 is "little" faster in  
those tests?? ;) (Now I know why I'm using r4)

£ukasz Mierzwa

Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'

[Grzegorz Kulewski]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Adrian Ulrich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If anyone is interested:
> I ran a small filesystem benchmark on my x86 PC.
>
> It includes:
>
> On Linux:
>  * Reiser4
>  * ReiserFS
>  * Ext3
>
> On Solaris (Using 'gnusolaris'[.org] -> Alpha 2)
>  * UFS
>  * ZFS
>
>
> NetApp's 'Postmark' was used to perform the tests.
> (Postmark simulates something like Mail/NNTP-Server load)
>
> Results:
>  http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt
>
>
> (I used the *default* mkfs/mount options for all filesystems.
> If you like, i can re-run the test with non-default parameters)

WOW! I am misreading something or Reiser4 is _really_ _that_ _fast_?

Could you also add some basic description what these tests do? Do they 
ensure that the data is really written to disk before the timer stops? 
What about using bigger partition (and data written/read) - say 4 times 
your RAM? Are you rebooting after creating fs? Could you make scripts you 
used available?

Could you add ext2, jfs, xfs to these benchmarks? Maybe also some other 
bechmarking program? Also maybe add Reiser4 with compression plugin to the 
list of filesystems.

Also, maybe you should post the updated results (preferably attached, not 
URL if it will fit in 60KB) to LKML for wider discussion about why things 
are like this?


Thanks,

Grzegorz Kulewski

Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'

[Jake Maciejewski]

I'm curious if disabling ZFS checksumming would make a significant
difference.

On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 22:59 +0100, Adrian Ulrich wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> If anyone is interested:
>  I ran a small filesystem benchmark on my x86 PC.
> 
>  It includes:
> 
>  On Linux:
>   * Reiser4
>   * ReiserFS
>   * Ext3
> 
>  On Solaris (Using 'gnusolaris'[.org] -> Alpha 2)
>   * UFS
>   * ZFS
> 
> 
>  NetApp's 'Postmark' was used to perform the tests.
>  (Postmark simulates something like Mail/NNTP-Server load)
> 
> Results:
>   http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt
> 
> 
> (I used the *default* mkfs/mount options for all filesystems.
>  If you like, i can re-run the test with non-default parameters)
> 
> 
>  -- Adrian
> 
-- 
Jake Maciejewski <maciejej@msoe.edu>

Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'

[Andreas Dilger]

On Feb 02, 2006  22:59 +0100, Adrian Ulrich wrote:
> If anyone is interested:
>  I ran a small filesystem benchmark on my x86 PC.
> 
>  It includes:
> 
>  On Linux:
>   * Reiser4
>   * ReiserFS
>   * Ext3
> 
>  On Solaris (Using 'gnusolaris'[.org] -> Alpha 2)
>   * UFS
>   * ZFS
> 
> 
>  NetApp's 'Postmark' was used to perform the tests.
>  (Postmark simulates something like Mail/NNTP-Server load)
> 
> Results:
>   http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt
> 
> (I used the *default* mkfs/mount options for all filesystems.
>  If you like, i can re-run the test with non-default parameters)

If you could format (or tune2fs) the ext3 filesystem with "-O dir_index"
this would likely improve performance if the test is creating many files
in the same dir.  Also, is the file size limit in bytes, or kilobytes?
Unfortunately, the canonical postmark URLs I can find are not useful.

What is a interesting, though maybe not terribly surprising is that ZFS
is doing so poorly in the second test.  I'd be extremely interested in
seeing the vmstat output while the tests are running, as I've heard that
ZFS is CPU hungry because of the checksumming.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.

Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'

[Hans Reiser]

I am surprised that Reiser4 does so well, and I would be interested in
knowing more details of exactly what the test does.  Our tests show
reiser4 not doing THAT much better, so  you must be doing something
different from our tests. 

I learn from almost every benchmark done by other people, because they
almost always test differently from what I had imagined I should test.

Hans

Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'

[Pysiak Satriani]

Hans,

> I am surprised that Reiser4 does so well, and I would be interested in
> knowing more details of exactly what the test does.  Our tests show
> reiser4 not doing THAT much better, so  you must be doing something
> different from our tests. 
Unfortunately LKML was not CC'd even once in this thread so your mail
that CC'd lkml looked very strange because it was a reply to messages
not seen on the list :-(

If you had the intention of letting folks outside reiserfs-ml know, you
might have missed it. Maybe Grzegorz Kulewski's suggestion about
Adrian doing repetetive benchmarks and posting them regularly is
quite valid and sensible.

-- 
Best regards,
Pysiak