All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
To: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>,
	tytso@mit.edu, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alan Piszcz <ap@solarrain.com>
Subject: Re: EXT4 is ~2X as slow as XFS (593MB/s vs 304MB/s) for writes?
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:07:34 -0500 (EST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003011002240.26228@p34.internal.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B8BD3B0.3020502@msgid.tls.msk.ru>



On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Michael Tokarev wrote:

> Justin Piszcz wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-02-28, at 07:55, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>>>> === CREATE RAID-0 WITH 11 DISKS
>>>
>>> Have you tried testing with "nice" numbers of disks in your RAID set
>>> (e.g. 8 disks for RAID-0, 9 for RAID-5, 10 for RAID-6)?  The mballoc
>>> code is really much better tuned for power-of-two sized allocations.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes, the second system (RAID-5) has 8 disks and it shows the same
>> performance problems with ext4 and not XFS (as shown from previous
>> e-mail), where XFS usually got 500-600MiB/s for writes.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/e7b189bcaa2c1cb4/ad6c2a54b678cf5f?show_docid=ad6c2a54b678cf5f&pli=1
>>
>>
>> For the RAID-5 (from earlier testing):  <- This one has 8 disks.
>
> Note that for RAID-5, the "nice" number of disks is 9 as Andreas
> said, not 8 as in your example.
>
> /mjt
>

Hi, thanks for this.

RAID-0 with 12 disks:

p63:~# mdadm --create -e 0.90 /dev/md0 /dev/sd[b-m]1 --level=0 -n 12 -c 64
mdadm: /dev/sdb1 appears to contain an ext2fs file system
     size=1077256000K  mtime=Sun Feb 28 08:35:47 2010
mdadm: /dev/sdb1 appears to be part of a raid array:
     level=raid0 devices=11 ctime=Sun Feb 28 08:11:10 2010
mdadm: /dev/sdc1 appears to be part of a raid array:
     level=raid0 devices=11 ctime=Sun Feb 28 08:11:10 2010
mdadm: /dev/sdd1 appears to be part of a raid array:
     level=raid0 devices=11 ctime=Sun Feb 28 08:11:10 2010
mdadm: /dev/sde1 appears to be part of a raid array:
     level=raid0 devices=11 ctime=Sun Feb 28 08:11:10 2010
mdadm: /dev/sdf1 appears to be part of a raid array:
     level=raid0 devices=11 ctime=Sun Feb 28 08:11:10 2010
mdadm: /dev/sdg1 appears to be part of a raid array:
     level=raid0 devices=11 ctime=Sun Feb 28 08:11:10 2010
mdadm: /dev/sdh1 appears to be part of a raid array:
     level=raid0 devices=11 ctime=Sun Feb 28 08:11:10 2010
mdadm: /dev/sdi1 appears to be part of a raid array:
     level=raid0 devices=11 ctime=Sun Feb 28 08:11:10 2010
mdadm: /dev/sdj1 appears to be part of a raid array:
     level=raid0 devices=11 ctime=Sun Feb 28 08:11:10 2010
mdadm: /dev/sdk1 appears to be part of a raid array:
     level=raid0 devices=11 ctime=Sun Feb 28 08:11:10 2010
mdadm: /dev/sdl1 appears to be part of a raid array:
     level=raid0 devices=11 ctime=Sun Feb 28 08:11:10 2010
mdadm: /dev/sdm1 appears to be part of a raid array:
     level=raid6 devices=11 ctime=Sat Feb 27 06:57:29 2010
Continue creating array? y
mdadm: array /dev/md0 started.
p63:~# mkfs.ext4 /dev/md0
mke2fs 1.41.10 (10-Feb-2009)
Filesystem label=
OS type: Linux
Block size=4096 (log=2)
Fragment size=4096 (log=2)
Stride=0 blocks, Stripe width=0 blocks
366288896 inodes, 1465151808 blocks
73257590 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user
First data block=0
Maximum filesystem blocks=4294967296
44713 block groups
32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group
8192 inodes per group
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
         32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 2654208,
         4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 20480000, 23887872, 71663616, 78675968,
         102400000, 214990848, 512000000, 550731776, 644972544

Writing inode tables: 28936/44713..etc

p63:~# mount -o nobarrier /dev/md0 /r1
p63:~# cd /r1
p63:/r1# dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=1M count=10240
10240+0 records in
10240+0 records out
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 34.9723 s, 307 MB/s
p63:/r1#

Same issue for EXT4, with XFS, it gets faster:

p63:~# mkfs.xfs /dev/md0 -f
meta-data=/dev/md0               isize=256    agcount=32, agsize=45786000 blks
          =                       sectsz=512   attr=2
data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=1465151808, imaxpct=5
          =                       sunit=16     swidth=192 blks
naming   =version 2              bsize=4096   ascii-ci=0
log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=521728, version=2
          =                       sectsz=512   sunit=16 blks, lazy-count=1
realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0
mount /dev/md0 /r1
p63:~# mount /dev/md0 /r1
p63:~# cd /r1
p63:/r1# dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=1M count=10240
10240+0 records in
10240+0 records out
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 17.6473 s, 608 MB/s
p63:/r1#

Justin.





  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-01 15:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-02-27  0:31 EXT4 is ~2X as slow as XFS (593MB/s vs 304MB/s) for writes? Justin Piszcz
2010-02-27  0:46 ` Dmitry Monakhov
2010-02-27  1:05   ` Justin Piszcz
2010-02-27  1:05     ` Justin Piszcz
2010-02-28  0:56     ` Asdo
2010-02-28  9:59       ` Justin Piszcz
2010-02-27  0:51 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-02-27  1:08   ` Justin Piszcz
2010-02-27  1:12     ` Eric Sandeen
2010-02-27  1:28       ` Eric Sandeen
2010-02-27 10:14         ` Justin Piszcz
2010-02-27 10:51           ` Justin Piszcz
2010-02-27 11:09             ` Justin Piszcz
2010-02-27 11:36               ` Justin Piszcz
2010-02-28  5:42                 ` tytso
2010-02-28 14:55                   ` Justin Piszcz
2010-03-01  8:39                     ` Andreas Dilger
2010-03-01  9:21                       ` Justin Piszcz
2010-03-01 14:48                         ` Michael Tokarev
2010-03-01 15:07                           ` Justin Piszcz [this message]
2010-03-01 16:15                     ` Eric Sandeen
2010-02-28 23:50                 ` Dave Chinner
2010-03-02  0:08 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-03-02  0:37   ` Eric Sandeen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.00.1003011002240.26228@p34.internal.lan \
    --to=jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com \
    --cc=adilger@sun.com \
    --cc=ap@solarrain.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mjt@tls.msk.ru \
    --cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.