From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Pratt Subject: Re: Updated performance results Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:10:41 -0500 Message-ID: <4A6F6951.9020304@austin.ibm.com> References: <4A68AD69.4030803@dangyankee.net> <20090723210051.GB1040@think> <4A68DE81.3020505@dangyankee.net> <20090724132407.GC16192@think> <20090724140002.GD16192@think> <4A6F5BB6.4020204@austin.ibm.com> <20090728202355.GC13940@think> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed To: Chris Mason , linux-btrfs Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090728202355.GC13940@think> List-ID: Chris Mason wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 03:12:38PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote: > >> Chris Mason wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:24:07AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: >>> >>>>> Sure, will try to get to it tomorrow. >>>>> >>>> Sorry, I missed a fix in the experimental branch. I'll push out a >>>> rebased version in a few minutes. >>>> >>>> >>> Ok, the rebased version is ready to use. >>> >> New results are up for both with and without nodatacow. Not much change. >> >> http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/history/History.html >> >> Have another run going with nodatacow and ssd. >> > > Hi Steve, > > I think I'm going to start tuning something other than the > random-writes, there is definitely low hanging fruit in the large file > creates workload ;) Thanks again for posting all of these. > Sure, no problem. > The history graph has 2.6.31-rc btrfs against 2.6.29-rc ext4. Have you > done more recent runs on ext4? > > Yes, thanks for pointing that out, had so many issues I forgot to update the graphs for other file systems. Just pushed new graphs with data for 2.6.30-rc7 for all the other file systems. This was from your "newformat" branch from June 6th. Steve > -chris >