Re: Journal Filesystem Comparison on Netbench

Hans Reiser
2001-08-27T20:04:30Z

Please mount with -notails and repeat your results. ReiserFS can either save
you on disk space, or save you on performance, but not both at the same time.
That said, it does not surprise me that our locking is coarser than other
filesystems, and we will be fixing that in version 4. Unfortunately we don't
have the hardware to replicate your results.

Hans

Andrew Theurer wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I recently starting doing some fs performance comparisons with Netbench
> and the journal filesystems available in 2.4: Reiserfs, JFS, XFS, and
> Ext3. I thought some of you may be interested in the results. Below
> is the README from the http://lse.sourceforge.net. There is a kernprof
> for each test, and I am working on the lockmeter stuff right now. Let
> me
> know if you have any comments.
>
> Andrew Theurer
> IBM LTC
>
> README:
>
> http://lse.sourceforge.net/benchmarks/netbench/results/august_2001/filesystems/raid1e/README
>
> The following is a filesystem comparison on the NetBench workload.
> Filesystems tested include EXT2, EXT3, Reiserfs, XFS, and JFS.
> Server hardware is an 8 processor Intel Xeon, 700 MHz, 1MB L2
> cache, Profusion chipset, 4GB interleaved memory, and 4 Intel
> gigabit ethernet cards. This test was conducted using a
> RAID disk system, consisting of an IBM ServeRAID 4H SCSI adapter,
> equipped with 32 MB cache, using one SCSI channel, attached to 10
> disks, each having a capacity of 9 GB and a speed 10,000 RPM.
> The RAID was configured for level 10, a 5 disk stripe with mirror.
>
> The server was tested using linux 2.4.7, Samba 2.2.0, and NetBench
> 7.0.1.
> Since we only have enough clients to drive a 4-way SMP test (44), the
> kernel used 4 processors instead of eight. The
> "Enterprise Disk Suite" test was used for NetBench. Each filesystem
> was tested with the same test, starting with 4 clients and increasing
> clients by 4 up to 44 clients.
>
> Some optimizations were used for linux, including zerocopy,
> IRQ affinity, and interrupt delay for the gigabit cards,
> and process affinity for the smbd processes.
>
> Default configurations for all filesystems were used, except ext3
> used mode "data=writeback". No special options were chosen
> for performance for these initial tests. If you know of
> performance options that would benefit this test, please send
> me email, habanero@us.ibm.com
>
> Peak Performance Results:
>
> EXT2 773 Mbps @ 44 clients
> EXT3 660 Mbps @ 44 clients
> Reiserfs 532 Mbps @ 28 clients
> XFS 661 Mbps @ 44 clients
> JFS 683 Mbps @ 40 clients
>
> Data Files:
>
> This directory contains:
>
> kp.html Kernprof top 25 list for all filesystems,
> recorded during a 44 client test.
> lock.html -pending completion- Lockmeter results,
> recorded during a 44 client test.
> -update: Reiserfs lockmeter is completed.
> look at ./reiserfs/4p/lockmeter.txt for complete
> lockstat file.
>
> README This file
> ./<fstype> Test data for filesystem, <fstype> =
> [ext2|ext3|xfs|reiserfs|jfs]
> First subdirectory is the SMP config (4P for
> these tests)
> Next level directories are:
>
> sar: sysstat log for test
> netbench: netbench results in Excel format
> proc: some proc info before test
> samba: samba info
>
> Notes:
>
> In this test, JFS had the best peak throughput for journal filesystems,
> and ext2 had the best peak throughput for all filesystems. Reiserfs
> had the lowest peak throughput, and also had the most % time in
> stext_lock
> (as shown in kp.html).
>
> Netbench is usually an "in memory" test, such that all files stay in
> buffer cache. Actually, during the test, kupdate is stopped. No file
> data
> is ever written to disk, but with the introduction on journal
> filesystems,
> journal data is written to disk. This allows the opportunity to compare
> how much data and how often data is written to disk for the 4 journal
> filesystems tested. the sysstat information shows blocks/sec for
> devices.
> In these tests, the device for the samba share is on dev8-1.
> JFS experienced a peak blocks/sec of ~10,000, while XFS was ~4100, EXT3
> was ~1100, and Reiserfs was ~800. It was interesting to see Reiserfs
> write at 800 blocks/sec, then nothing for 30 seconds, then again at
> ~800 blocks/sec. No other journal filesystem experienced that pattern
> of journal activity.
>
> Next Steps:
>
> Finish lockmeter reports
> Same tests on non-cached, single SCSI disk
> Investigate performance options for each filesystem
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/