From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Pratt Subject: Re: File System Performance results Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:12:01 -0500 Message-ID: <4905DA41.3090002@austin.ibm.com> References: <48FF87CE.2090502@austin.ibm.com> <20081025091504.GZ3184@webber.adilger.int> <4905D027.3070405@austin.ibm.com> <1225118220.6448.155.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andreas Dilger , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Mason Return-path: Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:39741 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750914AbYJ0PNW (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:13:22 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9RFDJYo009286 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:13:19 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m9RFC2CZ115220 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:12:02 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m9RFC2dU022737 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:12:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1225118220.6448.155.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Chris Mason wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 09:28 -0500, Steven Pratt wrote: > >> 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/ >>>> > > I meant to ask if this is a permanent site for the results? It might > make sense to add a more generic fsperf.boxacle.net page. > We hope the site is permanent, as long as traffic and volume does not get too high. I'll see what I can do about the new page. > >>>> 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. >> > > Very true, especially performance results with checksumming off (like > the nodatacow results for random writes). > > >> 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. >> > > See the btrfs crc header file for the #define to enable the hw assist > mode if you're got the hardware that can do it. In my runs here, it > makes the checksumming free aside from the time spent storing the extra > metadata. > > Great, but you are making me jealous. I've been waiting for my Nehelam box for months! Steve > -chris > >