Linux LVM users
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Markus Baertschi <markus@markus.org>
To: Gary.Mansell@ricardo.com,
	LVM general discussion and development <linux-lvm@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Why the dramatic increase in filesystem performance when usingxfs????
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:25:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <41F25463.7020902@markus.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1106304669.3943.14.camel@grma-lap>


If you browse through the extensive filesystem benchmarks at

http://fsbench.netnation.com/

You'll find results quite similar to yours. XFS is performing well for 
large sequential operations while ext3 without the writeback option can 
be half the speed.

I usually use ext3 for the OS volumes only, except with SuSE where 
reiser3 is the default. For other filesystems I prefer jfs for no 
exceptionally good reason but that I came to like it on AIX.

Markus


Gary Mansell wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have always run ext3 filesystem with journalling on Redhat AS as it is
> the only supported filesystem.
> 
> One of my colleagues runs xfs, though, and on comparable hardware
> configs he gets twice the performance compared to my ext3 tests.
> 
> The test that I perform is to create a file at least twice the size of
> the RAM installed in the system to avoid the possibility of cacheing,
> measuring the time to write and read the file back gives me the
> performance figure that I am after. I realise that this is a very simple
> test of large sequential IO but it is good enough for my needs.
> 
> ie
> 
> Write test:
> 
> # time dd if=/dev/zero of=./testfile bs=16384 count=250000 ; time sync
> 
> Read test:
> 
> # time dd if=./testfile of=/dev/null bs=16384
> 
> 
> As the xfs performance comes back about twice the performance of ext3
> for this test I am of the opinion that xfs must be cheating somehow. It
> has always been my opinion that the IO bottleneck is the hardware and
> not the filesystem hence changing the filesystem but using the same
> hardware should not make a huge difference to performance (you still
> have to get the same amount of data out to disk at the end of the day)
> 
> I am struggling to comprehend how xfs can cheat, though, as it can't
> cache such a huge file as there is not enough memory. Is it perhaps
> cheating because the file is comprised entirely of zero's?
> 
> Can someone please enlighten me
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Gary Mansell


-- 
   Markus Baertschi             Phone: ++41 (21) 807 1677
   Bas du Ross� 14b             Fax  : ++41 (21) 807 1678
   CH-1163, Etoy                Email: markus@markus.org
   Switzerland                  Homepage: www.markus.org

      parent reply	other threads:[~2005-01-22 13:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-01-21 10:51 [linux-lvm] Why the dramatic increase in filesystem performance when usingxfs???? Gary Mansell
2005-01-21 16:24 ` Greg Freemyer
2005-01-24  0:32   ` Nathan Scott
2005-01-24 17:53     ` Greg Freemyer
2005-01-24 21:55       ` Nathan Scott
2005-01-24 23:35         ` [linux-lvm] XFS and snapshots [WAS: Re: Why the dramatic increase in filesystem performance when usingxfs????] Greg Freemyer
2005-01-25 17:36           ` Kristina Clair
2005-01-25 17:51             ` Greg Freemyer
2005-01-21 18:44 ` [linux-lvm] Why the dramatic increase in filesystem performance when usingxfs???? David S.
2005-01-22 13:25 ` Markus Baertschi [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=41F25463.7020902@markus.org \
    --to=markus@markus.org \
    --cc=Gary.Mansell@ricardo.com \
    --cc=linux-lvm@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox