From: Duc Vianney <dvianney@us.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>,
mgross <mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com>,
"Griffiths, Richard A" <richard.a.griffiths@intel.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:03:32 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D13A2B4.236E55DD@us.ibm.com> (raw)
Andrew Morton wrote:
>If you have time, please test ext2 and/or reiserfs and/or ext3
>in writeback mode.
I ran IOzone on ext2fs, ext3fs, JFS, and Reiserfs on an SMP 4-way
500MHz, 2.5GB RAM, two 9.1GB SCSI drives. The test partition is 1GB,
test file size is 128MB, test block size is 4KB, and IO threads varies
from 1 to 6. When comparing with other file system for this test
environment, the results on a 2.5.19 SMP kernel show ext3fs is having
performance problem with Writes and in particularly, with Random Write.
I think the BKL contention patch would help ext3fs, but I need to verify
it first.
The following data are throughput in MB/sec obtained from IOzone
benchmark running on all file systems installed with default options.
Kernels 2519smp4 2519smp4 2519smp4 2519smp4
No of threads=1 ext2-1t jfs-1t ext3-1t reiserfs-1t
Initial write 138010 111023 29808 48170
Rewrite 205736 204538 119543 142765
Read 236500 237235 231860 236959
Re-read 242927 243577 240284 242776
Random read 204292 206010 201664 207219
Random write 180144 180461 1090 121676
No of threads=2 ext2-2t jfs-2t ext3-2t reiserfs-2t
Initial write 196477 143395 62248 55260
Rewrite 261641 261441 126604 205076
Read 292566 292796 313562 291434
Re-read 302239 306423 341416 303424
Random read 296152 295430 316966 288584
Random write 253026 251013 958 203358
No of threads=4 ext2-4t jfs-4t ext3-4t reiserfs-4t
Initial write 79513 172302 42051 48782
Rewrite 256568 269840 124912 231395
Read 290599 303669 327066 283793
Re-read 289578 303644 327362 287531
Random read 354011 353455 353806 351671
Random write 279704 279922 2482 250498
No of threads=6 ext2-6t jfs-6t ext3-6t reiserfs-6t
Initial write 98559 69825 59728 15576
Rewrite 274993 286987 126048 232193
Read 330522 326143 332147 326163
Re-read 339672 328890 333094 326725
Random read 348059 346154 347901 344927
Random write 281613 280213 3659 227579
Cheers,
Duc J Vianney, dvianney@us.ibm.com
home page: http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linuxperf/
project page: http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/projects/linuxperf
next reply other threads:[~2002-06-21 22:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-21 22:03 Duc Vianney [this message]
2002-06-21 23:11 ` [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large Andrew Morton
2002-06-22 0:19 ` kwijibo
2002-06-22 8:10 ` kwijibo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-06-23 4:33 Andreas Dilger
2002-06-23 6:00 ` Christopher E. Brown
2002-06-23 6:35 ` [Lse-tech] " William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-23 7:29 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-23 7:36 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-23 7:45 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-23 7:55 ` Christopher E. Brown
2002-06-23 8:11 ` David Lang
2002-06-23 8:31 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-23 16:21 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-06-23 17:06 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-06-20 16:24 [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of s pindles " Gross, Mark
2002-06-20 21:11 ` [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles " Andrew Morton
[not found] <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C057B499E@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com>
2002-06-20 16:10 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-20 20:47 ` John Hawkes
2002-06-19 21:29 mgross
2002-06-20 0:54 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-20 4:09 ` [Lse-tech] " Dave Hansen
2002-06-20 6:03 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-06-20 6:53 ` Andrew Morton
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=3D13A2B4.236E55DD@us.ibm.com \
--to=dvianney@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--cc=richard.a.griffiths@intel.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