Re: EXT4 is ~2X as slow as XFS (593MB/s vs 304MB/s) for writes?

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>]

Justin Piszcz wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010, tytso@mit.edu wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 06:36:37AM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>>>
>>> I still would like to know however, why 350MiB/s seems to be the maximum
>>> performance I can get from two different md raids (that easily do
>>> 600MiB/s
>>> with XFS).
> 
>> Can you run "filefrag -v <filename>" on the large file you created
>> using dd?  Part of the problem may be the block allocator simply not
>> being well optimized super large writes.  To be honest, that's not
>> something we've tried (at all) to optimize, mainly because for most
>> users of ext4 they're more interested in much more reasonable sized
>> files, and we only have so many hours in a day to hack on ext4.  :-)
>> XFS in contrast has in the past had plenty of paying customers
>> interested in writing really large scientific data sets, so this is
>> something Irix *has* spent time optimizing.
> Yes, this is shown at the bottom of the e-mail both with -o data=ordered
> and data=writeback.

...

> === SHOW FILEFRAG OUTPUT (NOBARRIER,ORDERED)
> 
> p63:/r1# filefrag -v /r1/bigfile Filesystem type is: ef53
> File size of /r1/bigfile is 10737418240 (2621440 blocks, blocksize 4096)
>  ext logical  physical  expected length flags
>    0       0     34816            32768
>    1   32768     67584            30720
>    2   63488    100352     98303  32768
>    3   96256    133120            30720
>    4  126976    165888    163839  32768
>    5  159744    198656            30720
...

That looks pretty good.

I think Dave's suggesting of seeing what cpu usage looks like is a good one.

Running blktrace on xfs vs. ext4 could possibly also shed some light.

-Eric