From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932494Ab2JWAH3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:07:29 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:58637 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932366Ab2JWAH1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:07:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:07:25 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Sooman Jeong <77smart@hanyang.ac.kr> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vyacheslav Dubeyko Subject: Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance Message-ID: <20121023000725.GA10990@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1350360423154.2800.144.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr> <20121020192215.GB555@elf.ucw.cz> <20121021102638.GA14031@elf.ucw.cz> <1350905803450.1936.166.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1350905803450.1936.166.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > As requested, I compared performance of VFAT with f2fs on SD card. > Following is summary of the measurement. Thanks. > VFAT shows better performance on both random write+fsync and buffered-sequential write than f2fs. > However, on buffered-random and sequential write+fsync, f2fs still exhibits better performance > than other filesystems. > > > * buffered write (1GB file), 4KByte write > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Desktop PC Galaxy-S3 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > sequential (MB/s) random (IOPS) sequential (MB/s) random (IOPS) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ... > F2FS 10.6 2675 6.9 1682 > VFAT 7.3 1108 7.3 1075 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ok, f2fs is bit faster on desktop PC and a bit slower on S3. Good. > * write + fsync (100MB file), 4KByte write > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Desktop PC Galaxy-S3 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > sequential (KB/s) random (IOPS) sequential (KB/s) random (IOPS) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > F2FS 1057.9 240 772.3 184 > VFAT 356.5 260 474.4 373 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ok, random access on VFAT is a lot faster on S3 (and only very a bit on PC). Any idea why results are so different between PC and S3? Does F2FS need significantly more CPU? Does F2FS need significantly more RAM? (Booting PC with low mem= option my answer that). Anyway, it looks like F2FS is pretty fast filesystem... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html