public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: kwijibo@zianet.com
To: Duc Vianney <dvianney@us.ibm.com>
Cc: 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: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:19:52 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D13C2A8.6020007@zianet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3D13A2B4.236E55DD@us.ibm.com

This web site may be of interest for this discussion:
http://labs.zianet.com.  I have benchmarks using NFS
with ext3 there.  It also compares ext3 with ReiserFS.
The page is not quite complete but it has the
benchmarks up.

Steven

Duc Vianney wrote:

>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
>
>
>-
>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/
>
>
>  
>




  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-06-22  0:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-06-21 22:03 [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large Duc Vianney
2002-06-21 23:11 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-22  0:19 ` kwijibo [this message]
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=3D13C2A8.6020007@zianet.com \
    --to=kwijibo@zianet.com \
    --cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=dvianney@us.ibm.com \
    --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