public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Coly Li <coyli@suse.de>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc: Alex Tomas <bzzz.tomas@gmail.com>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: dir inode reservation V3
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:43:20 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4739D428.2010203@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4739D067.5080907@suse.de>



Coly Li wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback :-)
> 
> Alex Tomas wrote:
>> hmm. so you trade 265% degradation of creation for 40% improvement of
>> unlink?
>>
> 265% degradation is only for creating 50000 empty directories. This is not a common case.
> There are 13% improvement on create 15 files in each directories. Total time on creating these
> directories and files are 25m6s VS. 24m86s, indeed, dir inode reservation is a little faster.

Sorry a typo here, it's 25m6s VS. 24m7.86s.

> 
> Maybe most of the people will not create dozens of empty directories in their applications,
> therefore IMHO the 265% degradation is acceptable.
> 
> If user really need to create so many empty directories, they also can mount the file system without
> dir inode reservation to get better performance.
> 
>> thanks, Alex
>>
>> Coly Li wrote:
>>>             normal ext4            ext4 with dir inode reservation
>>>     mount options:    -o data=writeback        -o
>>> data=writeback,dir_ireserve=low
>>>     Create dirs:    real    0m49.101s        real    2m59.703s
>>>     Create files:    real    24m17.962s        real    21m8.161s
>>>     Unlink all:    real    24m43.788s        real    17m29.862s
>>> Creating dirs with dir inode reservation is slower than normal ext4 as
>>> predicted, because allocating
>>> directory inodes in non-linear order will cause extra hard disk
>>> seeking and block I/O. Creating
>>> files with dir inode reservation is 13% faster than normal ext4.
>>> Unlink all the directories and
>>> files is 29.2% faster as expected.
>>> When number of directories is increased, the performance improvement
>>> will be more considerable. More
>>> benchmark result will be posted here if necessary, because I need more
>>> time to run more test cases.
> 

-- 
Coly Li
SuSE PRC Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2007-11-13 16:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-11-13 14:12 [PATCH] ext4: dir inode reservation V3 Coly Li
2007-11-13 14:09 ` Alex Tomas
2007-11-13 16:27   ` Coly Li
2007-11-13 16:43     ` Coly Li [this message]
2007-11-20  2:01 ` Mingming Cao
2007-11-20  4:14   ` Coly Li
2007-11-20 20:22     ` Mingming Cao
2007-11-21  2:09       ` Andreas Dilger
2007-11-20 15:58 ` Jan Kara
2007-11-20 16:40   ` Coly Li
2007-11-20 16:44     ` Jan Kara

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=4739D428.2010203@suse.de \
    --to=coyli@suse.de \
    --cc=bzzz.tomas@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --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