From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Poor creat/delete files performance
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:39:31 -0400
Message-ID: <20100818153931.GT5854@think>
References: <4C6BB21E.3000809@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <7222A6B8ACA37D4AA1AC37810C43E8A80F5FC5C5@mail.corp.imt-systems.com>
 <20100818142541.GP5854@think>
 <7222A6B8ACA37D4AA1AC37810C43E8A80F5FC5C6@mail.corp.imt-systems.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"miaox@cn.fujitsu.com" <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: "Morten P.D. Stevens" <mstevens@imt-systems.com>
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <7222A6B8ACA37D4AA1AC37810C43E8A80F5FC5C6@mail.corp.imt-systems.com>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> 
> Your compilebench results are very interesting.
> 
> Here are my results with exactly the same benchmark:
> 
> Btrfs:
> 
> [root@fc13 compilebench-0.6]# ./compilebench -D /mnt/btrfs -i 30 --makej
> using working directory /mnt/btrfs, 30 intial dirs 100 runs
> native unpatched native-0 222MB in 3.14 seconds (70.82 MB/s)
> native patched native-0 109MB in 0.69 seconds (158.94 MB/s)
> native patched compiled native-0 691MB in 1.86 seconds (371.83 MB/s)
> create dir kernel-0 222MB in 2.28 seconds (97.53 MB/s)
> create dir kernel-1 222MB in 3.45 seconds (64.46 MB/s)

You'll probably find the btrfs create and delete speeds improve if you
mount with -o max_inline=0.  Please confirm which kernel you were
running?

Also btrfs hammers on slab/slub very hard, so a kernel with slab/slub
debugging on will tend to be slower on btrfs than the other filesystems.

[ btrfs results for the compile phase ]
> compile dir kernel-29 680MB in 2.93 seconds (232.30 MB/s)
> compile dir kernel-11 680MB in 3.24 seconds (210.07 MB/s)
> compile dir kernel-22 680MB in 3.12 seconds (218.15 MB/s)
> compile dir kernel-15 680MB in 3.25 seconds (209.43 MB/s)
> compile dir kernel-13 680MB in 3.23 seconds (210.72 MB/s)

> 
> Ext4:
> 
> [root@fc13 compilebench-0.6]# ./compilebench -D /mnt/ext4 -i 30 --makej
> using working directory /mnt/ext4, 30 intial dirs 100 runs
> native unpatched native-0 222MB in 2.34 seconds (95.03 MB/s)
> native patched native-0 109MB in 0.60 seconds (182.78 MB/s)
> native patched compiled native-0 691MB in 2.00 seconds (345.80 MB/s)
> create dir kernel-0 222MB in 2.16 seconds (102.95 MB/s)
> create dir kernel-1 222MB in 2.37 seconds (93.83 MB/s)
> create dir kernel-2 222MB in 3.11 seconds (71.50 MB/s)
> create dir kernel-3 222MB in 3.71 seconds (59.94 MB/s)
> create dir kernel-4 222MB in 3.55 seconds (62.64 MB/s)
> create dir kernel-5 222MB in 3.61 seconds (61.60 MB/s)
> create dir kernel-6 222MB in 3.34 seconds (66.58 MB/s)
> create dir kernel-7 222MB in 3.72 seconds (59.78 MB/s)
> create dir kernel-8 222MB in 2.66 seconds (83.60 MB/s)

Wow, much better than my drive.  What kind of storage is this?

> compile dir kernel-29 680MB in 4.10 seconds (166.01 MB/s)
> compile dir kernel-11 680MB in 4.35 seconds (156.47 MB/s)
> compile dir kernel-22 680MB in 4.42 seconds (153.99 MB/s)
> compile dir kernel-15 680MB in 4.59 seconds (148.29 MB/s)

Much lower than btrfs.  Strictly speaking this could be a layout
decision.  Ext4 could be trying to place the new .o files close to the
rest of the files in that subdirectory.  Btrfs tries harder to maximize
writeback speeds because COW causes fragmentation anyway.

-chris