All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Coly Li <coyli@suse.de>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc: Alex Tomas <bzzz.tomas@gmail.com>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: dir inode reservation V3
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:43:20 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4739D428.2010203@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4739D067.5080907@suse.de>



Coly Li wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback :-)
> 
> Alex Tomas wrote:
>> hmm. so you trade 265% degradation of creation for 40% improvement of
>> unlink?
>>
> 265% degradation is only for creating 50000 empty directories. This is not a common case.
> There are 13% improvement on create 15 files in each directories. Total time on creating these
> directories and files are 25m6s VS. 24m86s, indeed, dir inode reservation is a little faster.

Sorry a typo here, it's 25m6s VS. 24m7.86s.

> 
> Maybe most of the people will not create dozens of empty directories in their applications,
> therefore IMHO the 265% degradation is acceptable.
> 
> If user really need to create so many empty directories, they also can mount the file system without
> dir inode reservation to get better performance.
> 
>> thanks, Alex
>>
>> Coly Li wrote:
>>>             normal ext4            ext4 with dir inode reservation
>>>     mount options:    -o data=writeback        -o
>>> data=writeback,dir_ireserve=low
>>>     Create dirs:    real    0m49.101s        real    2m59.703s
>>>     Create files:    real    24m17.962s        real    21m8.161s
>>>     Unlink all:    real    24m43.788s        real    17m29.862s
>>> Creating dirs with dir inode reservation is slower than normal ext4 as
>>> predicted, because allocating
>>> directory inodes in non-linear order will cause extra hard disk
>>> seeking and block I/O. Creating
>>> files with dir inode reservation is 13% faster than normal ext4.
>>> Unlink all the directories and
>>> files is 29.2% faster as expected.
>>> When number of directories is increased, the performance improvement
>>> will be more considerable. More
>>> benchmark result will be posted here if necessary, because I need more
>>> time to run more test cases.
> 

-- 
Coly Li
SuSE PRC Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2007-11-13 16:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-11-13 14:12 [PATCH] ext4: dir inode reservation V3 Coly Li
2007-11-13 14:09 ` Alex Tomas
2007-11-13 16:27   ` Coly Li
2007-11-13 16:43     ` Coly Li [this message]
2007-11-20  2:01 ` Mingming Cao
2007-11-20  4:14   ` Coly Li
2007-11-20 20:22     ` Mingming Cao
2007-11-21  2:09       ` Andreas Dilger
2007-11-20 15:58 ` Jan Kara
2007-11-20 16:40   ` Coly Li
2007-11-20 16:44     ` Jan Kara

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4739D428.2010203@suse.de \
    --to=coyli@suse.de \
    --cc=bzzz.tomas@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.