Re: Updated performance results

Steven Pratt
2009-08-07T13:56:52Z

Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 04:10:41PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
>
>>> Hi Steve,
>>>
>>> I think I'm going to start tuning something other than the
>>> random-writes, there is definitely low hanging fruit in the large file
>>> creates workload ;) Thanks again for posting all of these.
>>>
>> Sure, no problem.
>>
>>
>>> The history graph has 2.6.31-rc btrfs against 2.6.29-rc ext4. Have you
>>> done more recent runs on ext4?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, thanks for pointing that out, had so many issues I forgot to
>> update the graphs for other file systems. Just pushed new graphs
>> with data for 2.6.30-rc7 for all the other file systems. This was
>> from your "newformat" branch from June 6th.
>>
>
> I've been tuning the 128 thread large file streaming writes, and found
> some easy optimizations. While I'm fixing up these patches, could you
> please do a streaming O_DIRECT write test run for me? I think buffered
> writeback in general has some problems right now on high end arrays.
>
> On my box 2.6.31-rc5 streaming buffered write with xfs only got at
> 200MB/s (with the 128 thread ffsb workload). Buffered btrfs goes at
> 175MB/s.
>
> O_DIRECT btrfs runs at 390MB/s, while XFS varies a bit between 330MB/s
> and 250MB/s.
>
> I'm using a 1MB write blocksize.
>
On my todo list, but am swamped this week trying to get ready for
vacation. Will try to get to it as soon as I can.

Stee

> -chris
>