From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m3O415Gp013034 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:01:06 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 05E14DF178 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id tgDYVlo2YIsXTCXy for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4810062F.50100@sandeen.net> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:01:51 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: XFS drops create/delete files to 6.6% of EXT3 (software raid) and to 0.6% of EXT3 (3ware hardware raid) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Michael Darling Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Michael Darling wrote: > I am preparing a new server, and benchmarking EXT3 against XFS, both using > software RAID and hardware RAID using a 3ware 9650SE-4LPML. > > Using bonnie++ as a benchmark, I am seeing significant performance boosts in > my block sequential reads and writes moving from EXT3 to XFS. I am aware > that XFS won't create and delete files as quickly as EXT3, however I am > seeing drops from 29455/second to 1957/second using software RAID, and from > 32524/second to 189/second using hardware RAID. I'm not sure if when using > software raid, if creating and deleting files should drop to 6.6% of EXT3. > But, what I'm pretty sure of, is when using hardware raid, that creating and > deleting files shouldn't drop to 0.6% of EXT3. So I played with this a little on 2.6.25, on plain partitions. I saw similar numbers; for example, sequential creates: ext3: 23698/s xfs: 319/s xfs,nobarrier: 4478/s then on a whim I tried an external log on a devicemapper zero target :) xfs,fakelog: 15156/s Others can probably wax eloquent as to why xfs is slower on this test, but it's not unique to your setup, at least. -Eric