From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marco Stornelli Subject: Re: Some baseline tests on new hardware (was Re: [PATCH] xfs: optimise CIL insertion during transaction commit [RFC]) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 17:22:43 +0200 Message-ID: <51DAD943.6050703@gmail.com> References: <1372657476-9241-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20130708124453.GC3438@dastard> <20130708135953.GF5988@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dave Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f43.google.com ([74.125.83.43]:51162 "EHLO mail-ee0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752001Ab3GHP3w (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:29:52 -0400 Received: by mail-ee0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l10so2891438eei.16 for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:29:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130708135953.GF5988@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Il 08/07/2013 15:59, Jan Kara ha scritto: > On Mon 08-07-13 22:44:53, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> So, lets look at ext4 vs btrfs vs XFS at 16-way (this is on the >> 3.10-cil kernel I've been testing XFS on): >> >> create walk unlink >> time(s) rate time(s) time(s) >> xfs 222 266k+-32k 170 295 >> ext4 978 54k+- 2k 325 2053 >> btrfs 1223 47k+- 8k 366 12000(*) >> >> (*) Estimate based on a removal rate of 18.5 minutes for the first >> 4.8 million inodes. >> >> Basically, neither btrfs or ext4 have any concurrency scaling to >> demonstrate, and unlinks on btrfs a just plain woeful. > Thanks for posting the numbers. There isn't anyone seriously testing ext4 > SMP scalability AFAIK so it's not surprising it sucks. Funny, if I well remember Google guys switched android from yaffs2 to ext4 due to its superiority on SMP :) Marco