From: Sooman Jeong <77smart@hanyang.ac.kr>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: 77smart@hanyang.ac.kr
Subject: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:07:03 +0900 (GMT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1350360423154.2800.144.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr> (raw)
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8, Size: 4693 bytes --]
This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs.
* test platform
　i) Desktop PC : Linux 3.6.1 (f2fs patched), Intel i5-2500 @3.3GHz quad-core, 8GB RAM, Transcend 16GB class 10 micro SD card
　ii) Galaxy-S3 : Linux 3.0.15 (f2fs ported), Android 4.0.4, DVFS turned off, Transcend 16GB class 10 micro SD card
* experiment 1: buffered write(sequential and random, 4KByte write)
===================================================================
F2FS surpasses other two filesystems in both random and sequential. In desktop and Galaxy S3, f2fs exhibits 2.5 and 1.6 times better performance in random write against EXT4, respectively. EXT4 is standard Android filesystem.
buffered write (1GB file)
+-------+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| | Desktop PC | Galaxy-S3 |
| +-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| |sequential (MB/s)| random (IOPS) |sequential (MB/s) | random (IOPS) |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| EXT4 | 7.1 | 1073 | 6.7 | 1073 |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| NILFS2| 6.8 | 1462 | 4.0 | 1272 |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| F2FS | 10.6 | 2675 | 6.9 | 1682 |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
* experiment 2: write + fsync(sequential and random)
====================================================
F2FS surpasses other two filesystems in both random and sequential workload. In desktop and Galaxy S3, f2fs exhibits 2 and 1.5 times better performance in write+fsync random write against EXT4, respectively.
write + fsync (100MB file)
+-------+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| | Desktop PC | Galaxy-S3 |
| +-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| |sequential (KB/s)| random (IOPS) |sequential (KB/s) | random (IOPS) |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| EXT4 | 511.8 | 125 | 383.4 | 119 |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| NILFS2| 545.2 | 112 | 356.7 | 72 |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| F2FS | 1057.9 | 240 | 772.3 | 184 |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
write() with fsync is to test the filesystem performance under Android SQLite operation.
* experiment 3: mounting time
===============================
To measure the mount time, we used two different scenarios. First, we mounted file system after formatting without rebooting system. Second, we mounted file system after rebooting in order to ensure any data cached in memory is flushed. Overall, EXT4 shows fastest mount time, and F2FS shows second best performance; however, we observed that F2FS takes longest time to mount right after formatting.
mounting time with Transcend 16GB micro-SD
+-------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| | Desktop PC | Galaxy-S3 |
| +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| |1st mount after | after rebooting |1st mount after | after rebooting |
| |format (msec) | (msec) |format (msec) | (msec) |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| EXT4 | 11 | 20 | 20 | 40 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| NILFS2| 920 | 1013 | 1680 | 1630 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| F2FS | 1486 | 161 | 2280 | 1570 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
Sooman Jeong ESOS Lab. Hanyang University.
<77smart@hanyang.ac.kr>ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(階ŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨èÚ&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥
next reply other threads:[~2012-10-16 4:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-16 4:07 Sooman Jeong [this message]
2012-10-16 6:58 ` Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance Namjae Jeon
2012-10-17 4:44 ` Sooman Jeong
2012-10-20 19:22 ` Pavel Machek
2012-10-21 9:09 ` Vyacheslav Dubeyko
2012-10-21 10:26 ` Pavel Machek
2012-10-22 11:36 ` Sooman Jeong
2012-10-23 0:07 ` Pavel Machek
2012-10-23 17:10 ` Vyacheslav Dubeyko
2012-10-30 15:36 ` Pavel Machek
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=1350360423154.2800.144.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr \
--to=77smart@hanyang.ac.kr \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.