Re: More Large blocksize benchmarks

[Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>]

On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 12:36 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:22:31PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > 
> > I'm stealing the cc list and reviving and old thread because I've
> > finally got some numbers to go along with the Btrfs variable blocksize
> > feature.  The basic idea is to create a read/write interface to
> > map a range of bytes on the address space, and use it in Btrfs for all
> > metadata operations (file operations have always been extent based).
> > 
> > So, instead of casting buffer_head->b_data to some structure, I read and
> > write at offsets in a struct extent_buffer.  The extent buffer is very
> > small and backed by an address space, and I get large block sizes the
> > same way file_write gets to write to 16k at a time, by finding the
> > appropriate page in the addess space.  This is an over simplification
> > since I try to cache these mapping decisions to avoid using too much
> > CPU, but hopefully you get the idea.
> > 
> > The advantage to this approach is the changes are all inside Btrfs.  No
> > extra kernel patches were required.
> > 
> > Dave reported that XFS saw much higher write throughput with large
> > blocksizes, but so far I'm seeing the most benefits during reads.
> 
> Apples to oranges, Chris ;)
> 

Grin, if the two were the same, there'd be no reason to write a new one.
I didn't expect faster writes on btrfs, at least not for workloads that
did not require reads.  The basic idea is to show there are a variety of
ways the larger blocks can improve (and hurt) performance.

Also, vmap isn't the only implementation path.  Its true the Btrfs
changes for this were huge, but a big chunk of the changes were for
different leaf/node blocksizes, something that may never get used in
practice.

-chris