From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Pratt Subject: Re: Updated performance results Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:56:06 -0500 Message-ID: <4A7C3276.4020802@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> <4A6F6951.9020304@austin.ibm.com> <20090805203526.GE12524@think> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Chris Mason , linux-btrfs To: debian developer Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: debian developer wrote: > HI, > > Do you have any benchmarks against non-raid common workloads? > Like say a desktop user? It would be great to compare against ext3, > ext4, xfs etc., > Yes, have had a little trouble with that box recently, but plenty of results based on the 2.6.29 kernels here: http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/single-disk/History/History.html If you are not familiar with the runs I have been doing, you can find the details of the benchmarking machine and test procedures here: http://btrfs.boxacle.net/ Steve > Thanks, > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Chris Mason wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 04:10:41PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote: >> >>>> 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. >>> >> I've been tuning the 128 thread large file streaming writes, and found >> some easy optimizations. While I'm fixing up these patches, could you >> please do a streaming O_DIRECT write test run for me? I think buffered >> writeback in general has some problems right now on high end arrays. >> >> On my box 2.6.31-rc5 streaming buffered write with xfs only got at >> 200MB/s (with the 128 thread ffsb workload). Buffered btrfs goes at >> 175MB/s. >> >> O_DIRECT btrfs runs at 390MB/s, while XFS varies a bit between 330MB/s >> and 250MB/s. >> >> I'm using a 1MB write blocksize. >> >> -chris >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >>