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 022767F37 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:29:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B5FAC071 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f43.google.com (mail-ee0-f43.google.com [74.125.83.43]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id uTDD8YbwmgenK1tG (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l10so2915638eei.2 for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51DAD943.6050703@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 17:22:43 +0200 From: Marco Stornelli MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Some baseline tests on new hardware (was Re: [PATCH] xfs: optimise CIL insertion during transaction commit [RFC]) References: <1372657476-9241-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20130708124453.GC3438@dastard> <20130708135953.GF5988@quack.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20130708135953.GF5988@quack.suse.cz> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Jan Kara Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs