From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757308Ab2JWRLX (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:11:23 -0400 Received: from oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com ([173.254.64.10]:34933 "HELO oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754731Ab2JWRLV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:11:21 -0400 Subject: Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Vyacheslav Dubeyko In-Reply-To: <20121023000725.GA10990@elf.ucw.cz> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:10:46 +0400 Cc: Sooman Jeong <77smart@hanyang.ac.kr>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <54B92072-C95C-404F-A058-CF77098855C4@dubeyko.com> 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> <20121023000725.GA10990@elf.ucw.cz> To: Pavel Machek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-Identified-User: {2172:host202.hostmonster.com:dubeykoc:dubeyko.com} {sentby:smtp auth 46.39.244.28 authed with slava@dubeyko.com} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:07 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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). > Yes, I think that f2fs really needs more CPU and memory for functioning. The f2fs keeps more metadata as VFAT, as I understand. Moreover, it manages six active logs at runtime and GC can works in background. All of it needs in more CPU power. With the best regards, Vyacheslav Dubeyko. > 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