From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF0B7F53 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 20:25:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3859DAC005 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 18:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id vGe472Po84DtOIWu for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:23:44 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: Some baseline tests on new hardware (was Re: [PATCH] xfs: optimise CIL insertion during transaction commit [RFC]) Message-ID: <20130709012344.GG3438@dastard> References: <1372657476-9241-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20130708124453.GC3438@dastard> <20130709004332.GB23174@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130709004332.GB23174@gmail.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 08:43:32AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:44:53PM +1000, 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. > > > > ext4 create rate is limited by the extent cache LRU locking: > > I have a patch to fix this problem and the patch has been applied into > 3.11-rc1. The patch is (d3922a77): > ext4: improve extent cache shrink mechanism to avoid to burn CPU time > > I do really appreicate that if you could try your testing again against > this patch. I just want to make sure that this problem has been fixed. > At least in my own testing it looks fine. I'll redo them when 3.11-rc1 comes around. I'll let you know how much better it is, and where the next ring of the onion lies. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs