Re: Ext4 benchmarks

[Jean-Pierre Dion <jean-pierre.dion@bull.net>]

Hi Jose,

thank you for the feedback.

We took your remarks into account and we are doing some perfs with
iozone (close to desktop activity, mono-thread) and ffsb (allows to run 
benchs
in a multi-thread activity like a server does, different blocks sizes...).

We compare ext3 and ext4 (with extents, w/ and w/o del alloc...)...

We will publish the results on bullopensource.org


jean-pierre


Jose R. Santos wrote:
> Jean-Pierre Dion wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we already discussed during the conf calls what
>> benchmarks should be ran on ext4.
>>
>> As we have OLS paper on the table we were thinking
>> here at Bull what bench t run and on which kernel.
>>
>> If we want trying to compare ext3 and ext4, I guess we
>> should at least show that :
>> - ext4 has equivalent perfs than ext3,
>>   
>
> Define equivalent performance.
>
> Are the workloads only going to be focused on single repetitive 
> operations or simulation of actual desktop/server environments?  How 
> about performance on an aged filesystem?
>> - improvements done for ext3 are still in ext4 (mb alloc, del alloc...).
>>
>> So  we were wondering what's best to do :
>> - run on 2.6.19 (includes del alloc and mb alloc if I am not wrong),
>> - run on 2.6.20 (lacks mb alloc),
>>   
>
> What about system configurations?  While a desktop configuration would 
> be easy to come by, a server configuration needs a bit more thought.  
> Will ext4 perform better than ext3 in a wide range of storage 
> configuration that scale from a couple thousands IOPS to several 
> hundred thousand IOPS?
>
> Having baseline data on other filesystems like XFS or JFS would be 
> interesting as well to see how well ext4 stacks up to the competition. :)
>> - select relevant benchs (iozone...).
>>   
>
> I haven checked IOzone in quite a bit but last time I checked FFSB had 
> a couple of capabilities that are not available in IOzone like multi 
> threading on a shared data set and a very customizable IO operations 
> to attempt to simulate real IO patterns seen on workloads.  Might be 
> worth a look if your interested in compiling a very comprehensive set 
> of results
>> What do you think ?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> jean-pierre
>>   
>
> -JRS
>