From: Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Bonnie++ run with RAID-1 on a single SSD (2.6.29-rc4-224-g4b6136c)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:31:09 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200902132331.12928.chris@csamuel.org> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2433 bytes --]
Hi folks,
For people who might be interested, here is how btrfs performs
with two partitions on a single SSD drive in a RAID-1 mirror.
This is on a Dell E4200 with Core 2 Duo U9300 (1.2GHz), 2GB RAM
and a Samsung SSD (128GB Thin uSATA SSD).
Version 1.03c ------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
sys26 2G 28299 17 18633 12 85702 29 3094 18
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 7513 99 +++++ +++ 5140 98 3964 67 +++++ +++ 5652 99
sys26,2G,,,28299,17,18633,12,,,85702,29,3093.9,18,16,7513,99,+++++,+++,5140,98,3964,67,+++++,+++,5652,99
real 3m51.883s
user 0m0.360s
sys 0m46.099s
I'd previously blogged a test with 2.6.29-rc2 and there's no
real difference between the two runs.
http://www.csamuel.org/2009/01/04/btrfs-raid1-benchmark-on-dell-e4200-with-128gb-ssd
For a comparison, here is XFS on a single partition:
Version 1.03c ------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
sys26 2G 62075 19 36634 16 92023 26 1432 12
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 585 13 +++++ +++ 578 5 538 11 +++++ +++ 417 5
sys26,2G,,,62075,19,36634,16,,,92023,26,1431.8,12,16,585,13,+++++,+++,578,5,538,11,+++++,+++,417,5
real 4m10.987s
user 0m0.404s
sys 0m33.602s
Block I/O is faster, but btrfs hammers it for metadata operations, an
order of magnitude faster!
cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic.
For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 481 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2009-02-13 12:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-13 12:31 Chris Samuel [this message]
2009-02-13 13:27 ` Bonnie++ run with RAID-1 on a single SSD (2.6.29-rc4-224-g4b6136c) Sander
2009-02-13 14:26 ` Chris Mason
2009-03-24 10:41 ` Chris Samuel
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=200902132331.12928.chris@csamuel.org \
--to=chris@csamuel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox