From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Pratt Subject: Re: File System Performance results Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:28:55 -0500 Message-ID: <4905D027.3070405@austin.ibm.com> References: <48FF87CE.2090502@austin.ibm.com> <20081025091504.GZ3184@webber.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:59976 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751058AbYJ0O3O (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:29:14 -0400 Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m9RESaV7018792 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:28:36 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m9RET9kV084470 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:29:09 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m9RESUK7022781 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:28:31 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20081025091504.GZ3184@webber.adilger.int> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Oct 22, 2008 15:06 -0500, Steven Pratt wrote: > >> We have set up a new page which is intended mainly for tracking the >> performance of BTRFS, but in doing so we are testing other filesystems >> as well (ext3, ext4, xfs and jfs). Thought some people here might find >> the results useful. >> >> >> The main page is here: >> >> http://btrfs.boxacle.net/ >> >> Information about the machine configuration, tests run, how to reproduce >> the run and link to graphs of all the results are provided off of this >> page. When looking at any individual test, links are provided to the >> detail output from the tests including iostat, mpstat, oprofile data and >> more. >> > > Steve, > thanks for posting the numbers. They are definitely interesting. On > the surface, ext4 is doing quite well overall (yay!), Yes, that was good news. Along these lines if there is anything else we can do to help out ext4, just let us know. > but the important > point to realize is that btrfs is also providing a lot of extra function > under the covers so it isn't necessarily a clear-cut answer on which one > to pick. > > The extra CPU cost of btrfs will become increasingly irrelevant in the > future I think. > While I agree that CPU usage is becoming less and less of an issue, I think that at this point in the development cycle of btrfs, we still need to take a hard look at any areas where cpu usage is excessive, and see if we can keep that to a minimum. This is the main reason we did runs without checksumming, so we could see a better apple to apple comparison, not because it is not a useful feature. It will be very interesting to see how much HW checksumming changes this with Nehelam. Steve > Cheers, Andreas > -- > Andreas Dilger > Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group > Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. >