From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 596B1C4338F for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 14:20:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF25608FB for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 14:20:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234338AbhGZNjx (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2021 09:39:53 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:46734 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233970AbhGZNjv (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2021 09:39:51 -0400 Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-72-74-133-215.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [72.74.133.215]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 16QEJBnQ002055 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:19:12 -0400 Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 8E64C15C37CE; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:19:11 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Andres Freund Cc: Matthew Wilcox , James Bottomley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , "Darrick J. Wong" , Christoph Hellwig , Michael Larabel Subject: Re: Folios give an 80% performance win Message-ID: References: <20210715033704.692967-1-willy@infradead.org> <1e48f7edcb6d9a67e8b78823660939007e14bae1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <17a9d8bf-cd52-4e6c-9b3e-2fbc1e4592d9@www.fastmail.com> <4c634d08-c658-44cf-ac92-92097eeb8532@www.fastmail.com> <20210724214413.fqsbjxhhodfzchs6@alap3.anarazel.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210724214413.fqsbjxhhodfzchs6@alap3.anarazel.de> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 02:44:13PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > The phoronix test uses postgres with only one relevant setting adjusted > (increasing the max connection count). That will end up using a buffer pool of > 128MB, no huge pages, and importantly is configured to aim for not more than > 1GB for postgres' journal, which will lead to constant checkpointing. The test > also only runs for 15 seconds, which likely isn't even enough to "warm up" > (the creation of the data set here will take longer than the run). > > Given that the dataset phoronix is using is about ~16GB of data (excluding > WAL), and uses 256 concurrent clients running full tilt, using that limited > postgres settings doesn't end up measuring something particularly interesting > in my opinion. Hi Andreas, I tend to use the phoronix test suite for my performance runs when testing ext4 changes simply because it's convenient. Can you suggest a better set configuration settings that I should perhaps use that might give more "real world" numbers that you would find more significant? Thanks, - Ted