Re: Updated performance results

Chris Mason
2009-08-05T20:35:26Z

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.

-chris