public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: joel <joel@mainphrame.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: filesystem tuning hints?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:56:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <44BDAD5C.5020209@mainphrame.com> (raw)

Hello,

Please redirect me to an appropriate list if this is the wrong place -

This is perhaps a naive question, but please bear with me:

I recently had a chance to do some quick and dirty filesystem performance
comparisons on a server here before putting it into production. I tested
all the journaling filesystems available on stock suse linux enterprise
server v9, using bonnie, tiobench, iozone, and dbench, which all showed
similar trends - xfs tended to have steady performance and latency, jfs
had low performance but low cpu usage, reiserfs got the best numbers in
general, and ext3 results were all over the map. The dbench results are
fairly indicative of the results as a whole.

BTW - the mount options were basically "-noatime" on all filesystems.

I also tested ext2 just out of curiosity, and it thrashed all the others
by a large margin. Could I be doing something really really dumb here,
or is this just the cost of journalling?

Are there any dynamic kernel parameters which could bring any of the
journalled filesystems performance to a more respectable level?


Here are the dbench 3.04 results (MB/sec) plotted as nprocs vs fs type

n         ext2        ext3         jfs         reiser        xfs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1        239.45      180.94       35.30       209.02       154.44
2        438.83      287.87       36.34       324.25       157.31
4        807.57      389.64       35.81       475.24       154.95
8       1018.24      398.31       30.66       396.14       146.62
16      1003.61      354.79       27.10       403.79       139.17
32      1006.60      180.83       25.40       330.46       120.81
64      1007.61      117.39       24.88       107.89        79.18
128     1010.10       67.70       18.60        43.62         6.41
256     1005.33       26.55        4.10        34.98         7.27
512      973.30       18.00        2.97        29.61         5.34
1024     613.40       17.64        4.36        27.16         4.79
2048      84.05       13.53       16.37        23.29         3.84


Thanks & Regards,

Joel

             reply	other threads:[~2006-07-19  3:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-07-19  3:56 joel [this message]
2006-07-19 12:58 ` filesystem tuning hints? Theodore Tso
2006-07-19 14:47 ` Valdis.Kletnieks

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=44BDAD5C.5020209@mainphrame.com \
    --to=joel@mainphrame.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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