From: Jon Burgess <lkml@jburgess.uklinux.net>
To: Alex Zarochentsev <zam@namesys.com>
Cc: Jon Burgess <lkml@jburgess.uklinux.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:03:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4031222B.5030503@jburgess.uklinux.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040216175127.GJ1298@backtop.namesys.com>
Alex Zarochentsev wrote:
>The fs with delayed block allocation (Reiser4, XFS, seems JFS too) look much
>better.
>
>
Yes those results are in line with what I found on Reiserfs4 as well. I
also tried incresing the number of streams to see when things start to
break. Reiserfs4 seems to do well here as well. I stopped some tests
early because some filesystems were just too slow.
Streams: 1 1 2 2 4 4 8 8 16
16 32 32
Write Read Write Read Write Read Write Read Write
Read Write Read
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ext2 26.10 29.22 8.27 14.51 6.91 7.31
-------------------------------------
ext3-order 25.45 28.21 4.96 14.29
--------------------------------------------------
JFS 27.76 29.17 26.72 28.93 25.72 28.86 24.76 29.01 22.94
28.49 4.25 6.03
Reiser4 27.08 29.28 27.02 28.69 27.09 28.47 27.26 27.26 27.09
25.52 26.94 22.59
XFS 28.09 29.16 28.15 28.11 27.60 27.19 26.81 26.23 25.68
24.04 22.59 21.45
It would appear that with XFS and Reiser4 I would be able to
simultaneously record >32 MPEG TV channels on to a single disk. I think
that exceeds my TV recording requirements by some considerable margin :-)
Jon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-16 20:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-11 19:04 ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes Jon Burgess
2004-02-11 20:28 ` Rik van Riel
2004-02-11 21:02 ` Michael Frank
2004-02-11 21:18 ` Diego Calleja
2004-02-12 2:00 ` Dave Olien
2004-02-12 2:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-02-12 9:42 ` ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interl Giuliano Pochini
2004-02-12 10:15 ` John Bradford
2004-02-12 10:27 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-12 17:05 ` Michael Frank
2004-02-12 17:18 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-02-12 20:55 ` Helge Hafting
2004-02-13 1:57 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-02-13 2:05 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-12 14:59 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-02-13 12:15 ` ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes Jon Burgess
2004-02-12 10:40 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-12 20:17 ` Hans Reiser
2004-02-12 9:56 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-12 20:20 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-13 8:28 ` Juan Piernas Canovas
2004-02-16 17:51 ` Alex Zarochentsev
2004-02-16 20:03 ` Jon Burgess [this message]
2004-02-13 12:35 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-14 15:00 ` Jon Burgess
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=4031222B.5030503@jburgess.uklinux.net \
--to=lkml@jburgess.uklinux.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zam@namesys.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