From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Phillips <daniel@phunq.net>
Subject: Re: Tux3 Report: How fast can we =?iso-8859-1?Q?fsync=3F?=
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:40:22 -0700
Message-ID: <a50cab4e-1547-47f7-b280-b84a2cdb8d0d@phunq.net>
References: <8f886f13-6550-4322-95be-93244ae61045@phunq.net>
 <1430274071.3363.4.camel@gmail.com>
 <1906f271-aa23-404b-9776-a4e2bce0c6aa@phunq.net>
 <1430289213.3693.3.camel@gmail.com>
 <b10acd39-85d6-44f8-bbad-ac393bd8504e@phunq.net>
 <1430325763.19371.41.camel@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tux3@tux3.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Return-path: <tux3-bounces@phunq.net>
In-Reply-To: <1430325763.19371.41.camel@gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://phunq.net/mailman/options/tux3>,
 <mailto:tux3-request@phunq.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://phunq.net/pipermail/tux3/>
List-Post: <mailto:tux3@phunq.net>
List-Help: <mailto:tux3-request@phunq.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://phunq.net/mailman/listinfo/tux3>,
 <mailto:tux3-request@phunq.net?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tux3-bounces@phunq.net
Sender: "Tux3" <tux3-bounces@phunq.net>
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:42:43 AM PDT, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> [dbench bakeoff]
>
> With dbench v4.00, tux3 seems to be king of the max_latency hill, but
> btrfs took throughput on my box.  With v3.04, tux3 took 1st place at
> splashing about in pagecache, but last place at dbench -S.
>
> Hohum, curiosity satisfied.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for that. Please keep in mind, that was our B team, it does a
full fs sync for every fsync. Maybe a rematch when the shiny new one
lands? Also, hardware? It looks like a single 7200 RPM disk, but it
would be nice to know. And it seems, not all dbench 4.0 are equal.
Mine doesn't have a -B option.

That order of magnitude latency difference is striking. It sounds
good, but what does it mean? I see a smaller difference here, maybe
because of running under KVM.

Your results seem to confirm the gap I noticed between Ext4 and XFS
on the one hand and Btrfs and Tux3 on the other, with the caveat that
the anomalous dbench -S result is probably about running with the
older fsync code. Of course, this is just dbench, but maybe something
to keep an eye on.

Regards,

Daniel