All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sooman Jeong <77smart@hanyang.ac.kr>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, YOUJIP WON <youjip.won@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:44:07 +0900 (GMT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1350449047509.2800.151.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKYAXd_fT0Qk4C=AovO6Gp_6pEET_=BdVLHEz1kzQbm_D2AgyQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8, Size: 5616 bytes --]


Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:58:59 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>Hello.
>
>Would you share the result about random read ?
>
>Thanks.
>
>2012/10/16, Sooman Jeong <77smart@hanyang.ac.kr>:
>>
>> 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>


As you have requested, I have attached result of read performance(iozone).

* experiment 4: read(sequential and random)
====================================================

F2FS shows slightly better read performance than other two filesystems in both
sequential and random workload.

buffered read (1GB file)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Desktop PC                         Galaxy-S3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         sequential (MB/s)  random (IOPS)  sequential (MB/s)   random (IOPS)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  EXT4           16.4            1568               9.6             1395
  NILFS2         16.6            1609               9.6             1440
  F2FS           16.8            1643               9.7             1499
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * iozone command : iozone -i 0 -i 1 -i 2 -f /mnt/ext/test.txt -s 1G -r 4k -+n -e -U /mnt/ext
  

Sooman Jeong

ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥

  reply	other threads:[~2012-10-17  4:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-10-16  4:07 Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance Sooman Jeong
2012-10-16  6:58 ` Namjae Jeon
2012-10-17  4:44   ` Sooman Jeong [this message]
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=1350449047509.2800.151.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr \
    --to=77smart@hanyang.ac.kr \
    --cc=linkinjeon@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=youjip.won@gmail.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 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.