* random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) [not found] <43D7C6BE.1010804@namesys.com> @ 2006-01-25 18:59 ` Hans Reiser 2006-01-26 15:33 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Hans Reiser @ 2006-01-25 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Edward Shishkin; +Cc: LKML, Reiserfs mail-list Notice how CPU speed (and number of cpus) completely determines compression performance. cryptcompress refers to the reiser4 compression plugin, (unix file) refers to the reiser4 non-compressing plugin. Edward Shishkin wrote: > Here are the tests that vs asked for: > Creation (dd) of 20 tarfiles (the original 200M file is in ramfs) > Kernel: 2.6.15-mm4 + current git snapshot of reiser4 > > ------------------------------------------ > > Laputa workstation > Uni Intel Pentium 4 (2.26 GHz) 512M RAM > > ext2: > real 2m, 15s > sys 0m, 14s > > reiser4(unix file) > real 2m, 7s > sys 0m, 23s > > reiser4(cryptcompress, lzo1, 64K) > real 2m, 13s > sys 0m, 11s > ------------------------------------------ > > Belka workstation > Dual Intel Xeon (2.4GHz) 1G RAM > > ext2: > real 2m, 16s > sys 0m, 10s > > reiser4(unix file) > real 2m, 14s > sys 0m, 17s > > reiser4(cryptcompress, lzo1, 64K) > real 1m, 35s > sys 0m, 14s > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) 2006-01-25 18:59 ` random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) Hans Reiser @ 2006-01-26 15:33 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-26 18:17 ` Edward Shishkin 2006-01-27 7:30 ` Hans Reiser 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2006-01-26 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans Reiser; +Cc: Edward Shishkin, LKML, Reiserfs mail-list On Wed, Jan 25 2006, Hans Reiser wrote: > Notice how CPU speed (and number of cpus) completely determines > compression performance. > > cryptcompress refers to the reiser4 compression plugin, (unix file) > refers to the reiser4 non-compressing plugin. > > Edward Shishkin wrote: > > > Here are the tests that vs asked for: > > Creation (dd) of 20 tarfiles (the original 200M file is in ramfs) > > Kernel: 2.6.15-mm4 + current git snapshot of reiser4 > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > Laputa workstation > > Uni Intel Pentium 4 (2.26 GHz) 512M RAM > > > > ext2: > > real 2m, 15s > > sys 0m, 14s > > > > reiser4(unix file) > > real 2m, 7s > > sys 0m, 23s > > > > reiser4(cryptcompress, lzo1, 64K) > > real 2m, 13s > > sys 0m, 11s Just curious - does your crypt plugin reside in user space? -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) 2006-01-26 15:33 ` Jens Axboe @ 2006-01-26 18:17 ` Edward Shishkin 2006-01-26 18:56 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-27 7:30 ` Hans Reiser 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Edward Shishkin @ 2006-01-26 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: Hans Reiser, LKML, Reiserfs mail-list Jens Axboe wrote: >On Wed, Jan 25 2006, Hans Reiser wrote: > > >>Notice how CPU speed (and number of cpus) completely determines >>compression performance. >> >>cryptcompress refers to the reiser4 compression plugin, (unix file) >>refers to the reiser4 non-compressing plugin. >> >>Edward Shishkin wrote: >> >> >> >>>Here are the tests that vs asked for: >>>Creation (dd) of 20 tarfiles (the original 200M file is in ramfs) >>>Kernel: 2.6.15-mm4 + current git snapshot of reiser4 >>> >>>------------------------------------------ >>> >>>Laputa workstation >>>Uni Intel Pentium 4 (2.26 GHz) 512M RAM >>> >>>ext2: >>>real 2m, 15s >>>sys 0m, 14s >>> >>>reiser4(unix file) >>>real 2m, 7s >>>sys 0m, 23s >>> >>>reiser4(cryptcompress, lzo1, 64K) >>>real 2m, 13s >>>sys 0m, 11s >>> >>> > >Just curious - does your crypt plugin reside in user space? > > > Nop. This is just wrappers for linux crypto api, zlib, etc.. so user time is zero and not interesting. Edward. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) 2006-01-26 18:17 ` Edward Shishkin @ 2006-01-26 18:56 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-26 20:41 ` Edward Shishkin 2006-01-28 16:53 ` Alexander Zarochentsev 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2006-01-26 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Edward Shishkin; +Cc: Hans Reiser, LKML, Reiserfs mail-list On Thu, Jan 26 2006, Edward Shishkin wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > >On Wed, Jan 25 2006, Hans Reiser wrote: > > > > > >>Notice how CPU speed (and number of cpus) completely determines > >>compression performance. > >> > >>cryptcompress refers to the reiser4 compression plugin, (unix file) > >>refers to the reiser4 non-compressing plugin. > >> > >>Edward Shishkin wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Here are the tests that vs asked for: > >>>Creation (dd) of 20 tarfiles (the original 200M file is in ramfs) > >>>Kernel: 2.6.15-mm4 + current git snapshot of reiser4 > >>> > >>>------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>>Laputa workstation > >>>Uni Intel Pentium 4 (2.26 GHz) 512M RAM > >>> > >>>ext2: > >>>real 2m, 15s > >>>sys 0m, 14s > >>> > >>>reiser4(unix file) > >>>real 2m, 7s > >>>sys 0m, 23s > >>> > >>>reiser4(cryptcompress, lzo1, 64K) > >>>real 2m, 13s > >>>sys 0m, 11s > >>> > >>> > > > >Just curious - does your crypt plugin reside in user space? > > > > > > > > Nop. > This is just wrappers for linux crypto api, zlib, etc.. > so user time is zero and not interesting. Then why is the sys time lower than the "plain" writes on ext2 and reiser4? Surely compressing isn't for free, yet the sys time is lower on the compression write than the others. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) 2006-01-26 18:56 ` Jens Axboe @ 2006-01-26 20:41 ` Edward Shishkin 2006-01-27 7:43 ` Hans Reiser 2006-01-27 8:06 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-28 16:53 ` Alexander Zarochentsev 1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Edward Shishkin @ 2006-01-26 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: Hans Reiser, LKML, Reiserfs mail-list Jens Axboe wrote: >On Thu, Jan 26 2006, Edward Shishkin wrote: > > >>Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Wed, Jan 25 2006, Hans Reiser wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Notice how CPU speed (and number of cpus) completely determines >>>>compression performance. >>>> >>>>cryptcompress refers to the reiser4 compression plugin, (unix file) >>>>refers to the reiser4 non-compressing plugin. >>>> >>>>Edward Shishkin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Here are the tests that vs asked for: >>>>>Creation (dd) of 20 tarfiles (the original 200M file is in ramfs) >>>>>Kernel: 2.6.15-mm4 + current git snapshot of reiser4 >>>>> >>>>>------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>>Laputa workstation >>>>>Uni Intel Pentium 4 (2.26 GHz) 512M RAM >>>>> >>>>>ext2: >>>>>real 2m, 15s >>>>>sys 0m, 14s >>>>> >>>>>reiser4(unix file) >>>>>real 2m, 7s >>>>>sys 0m, 23s >>>>> >>>>>reiser4(cryptcompress, lzo1, 64K) >>>>>real 2m, 13s >>>>>sys 0m, 11s >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>Just curious - does your crypt plugin reside in user space? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Nop. >>This is just wrappers for linux crypto api, zlib, etc.. >>so user time is zero and not interesting. >> >> > >Then why is the sys time lower than the "plain" writes on ext2 and >reiser4? Surely compressing isn't for free, yet the sys time is lower on >the compression write than the others. > > > I guess this is because real compression is going in background flush, not in sys_write->write_cryptcompress (which just copies user's data to page cache). So in this case we have something very similar to ext2. Reiser4 plain write (write_unix_file) is more complex, and currently we try to reduce its sys time. Edward. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) 2006-01-26 20:41 ` Edward Shishkin @ 2006-01-27 7:43 ` Hans Reiser 2006-01-27 8:09 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-27 8:06 ` Jens Axboe 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Hans Reiser @ 2006-01-27 7:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Edward Shishkin; +Cc: Jens Axboe, LKML, Reiserfs mail-list Edward Shishkin wrote: > > I guess this is because real compression is going in background > flush, not in sys_write->write_cryptcompress (which just copies > user's data to page cache). So in this case we have something > very similar to ext2. Reiser4 plain write (write_unix_file) is > more complex, and currently we try to reduce its sys time. > > Edward. > > > > Which means that only real time is a meaningful measurement..... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) 2006-01-27 7:43 ` Hans Reiser @ 2006-01-27 8:09 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2006-01-27 8:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans Reiser; +Cc: Edward Shishkin, LKML, Reiserfs mail-list On Thu, Jan 26 2006, Hans Reiser wrote: > Edward Shishkin wrote: > > > > > I guess this is because real compression is going in background > > flush, not in sys_write->write_cryptcompress (which just copies > > user's data to page cache). So in this case we have something > > very similar to ext2. Reiser4 plain write (write_unix_file) is > > more complex, and currently we try to reduce its sys time. > > > > Edward. > > > > > > > > > Which means that only real time is a meaningful measurement..... Indeed. I guess the compression stuff cost is hard to quantify, since it has cache effects on the rest of the system in addition to costing CPU cycles on its own. A profile of, say, dbench with and without compression would be interesting to see. And the actual dbench reults, naturally :-) -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) 2006-01-26 20:41 ` Edward Shishkin 2006-01-27 7:43 ` Hans Reiser @ 2006-01-27 8:06 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-27 8:14 ` Hans Reiser 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2006-01-27 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Edward Shishkin; +Cc: Hans Reiser, LKML, Reiserfs mail-list On Thu, Jan 26 2006, Edward Shishkin wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > >On Thu, Jan 26 2006, Edward Shishkin wrote: > > > > > >>Jens Axboe wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>On Wed, Jan 25 2006, Hans Reiser wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Notice how CPU speed (and number of cpus) completely determines > >>>>compression performance. > >>>> > >>>>cryptcompress refers to the reiser4 compression plugin, (unix file) > >>>>refers to the reiser4 non-compressing plugin. > >>>> > >>>>Edward Shishkin wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Here are the tests that vs asked for: > >>>>>Creation (dd) of 20 tarfiles (the original 200M file is in ramfs) > >>>>>Kernel: 2.6.15-mm4 + current git snapshot of reiser4 > >>>>> > >>>>>------------------------------------------ > >>>>> > >>>>>Laputa workstation > >>>>>Uni Intel Pentium 4 (2.26 GHz) 512M RAM > >>>>> > >>>>>ext2: > >>>>>real 2m, 15s > >>>>>sys 0m, 14s > >>>>> > >>>>>reiser4(unix file) > >>>>>real 2m, 7s > >>>>>sys 0m, 23s > >>>>> > >>>>>reiser4(cryptcompress, lzo1, 64K) > >>>>>real 2m, 13s > >>>>>sys 0m, 11s > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>Just curious - does your crypt plugin reside in user space? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Nop. > >>This is just wrappers for linux crypto api, zlib, etc.. > >>so user time is zero and not interesting. > >> > >> > > > >Then why is the sys time lower than the "plain" writes on ext2 and > >reiser4? Surely compressing isn't for free, yet the sys time is lower on > >the compression write than the others. > > > > > > > > I guess this is because real compression is going in background > flush, not in sys_write->write_cryptcompress (which just copies > user's data to page cache). So in this case we have something > very similar to ext2. Reiser4 plain write (write_unix_file) is > more complex, and currently we try to reduce its sys time. So the systime quoted above is basically useless, it doesn't reflect the real time spent in the kernel by far. I think you should note that when you post these scores, otherwise you're really showing a skewed picture. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) 2006-01-27 8:06 ` Jens Axboe @ 2006-01-27 8:14 ` Hans Reiser 2006-01-27 8:21 ` Jens Axboe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Hans Reiser @ 2006-01-27 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: Edward Shishkin, LKML, Reiserfs mail-list Jens Axboe wrote: > So the systime quoted above is basically useless, it doesn't reflect the > >real time spent in the kernel by far. I think you should note that when >you post these scores, otherwise you're really showing a skewed picture. > > > He wasn't expecting me to post the benchmark, and I frankly only looked at the real time and forgot there was a systime in there that needed cutting out when I posted it. My error, not his. I must say though, the real time makes me quite happy, especially considering how CPUs are just going to keep getting faster. Best, Hans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) 2006-01-27 8:14 ` Hans Reiser @ 2006-01-27 8:21 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-27 8:41 ` Hans Reiser 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Jens Axboe @ 2006-01-27 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans Reiser; +Cc: Edward Shishkin, LKML, Reiserfs mail-list On Fri, Jan 27 2006, Hans Reiser wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > > So the systime quoted above is basically useless, it doesn't reflect the > > > >real time spent in the kernel by far. I think you should note that when > >you post these scores, otherwise you're really showing a skewed picture. > > > > > > > He wasn't expecting me to post the benchmark, and I frankly only looked > at the real time and forgot there was a systime in there that needed > cutting out when I posted it. My error, not his. I must say though, the > real time makes me quite happy, especially considering how CPUs are just > going to keep getting faster. Yeah and that's ok, I was just interested in seeing some more interesting compression benchmarks so I wondered if you had done that. -- Jens Axboe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) 2006-01-27 8:21 ` Jens Axboe @ 2006-01-27 8:41 ` Hans Reiser 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Hans Reiser @ 2006-01-27 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: Edward Shishkin, LKML, Reiserfs mail-list Jens Axboe wrote: > >Yeah and that's ok, I was just interested in seeing some more >interesting compression benchmarks so I wondered if you had done that. > > > I think "random minor benchmark" was an apt description, yes.;-) First we will debug it fully. Then we will figure out how to change mongo so that the files do not consist entirely of the letter a as their contents, and run mongo on it. Probably we will find some way to slice up a linux kernel tar file into files of random sizes, and assume that is a fair thing to let it compress during mongo. Then, just so people won't think mongo is slanted in our favor we will do some cp -r's of large numbers of linux kernel source trees and time that also. Hans ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) 2006-01-26 18:56 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-26 20:41 ` Edward Shishkin @ 2006-01-28 16:53 ` Alexander Zarochentsev 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Alexander Zarochentsev @ 2006-01-28 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: reiserfs-list; +Cc: Jens Axboe, Edward Shishkin, Hans Reiser, LKML Hello, On Thursday 26 January 2006 21:56, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26 2006, Edward Shishkin wrote: > > Jens Axboe wrote: > > >On Wed, Jan 25 2006, Hans Reiser wrote: > > >>Notice how CPU speed (and number of cpus) completely determines > > >>compression performance. > > >> > > >>cryptcompress refers to the reiser4 compression plugin, (unix file) > > >>refers to the reiser4 non-compressing plugin. > > >> > > >>Edward Shishkin wrote: > > >>>Here are the tests that vs asked for: > > >>>Creation (dd) of 20 tarfiles (the original 200M file is in ramfs) > > >>>Kernel: 2.6.15-mm4 + current git snapshot of reiser4 > > >>> > > >>>------------------------------------------ > > >>> > > >>>Laputa workstation > > >>>Uni Intel Pentium 4 (2.26 GHz) 512M RAM > > >>> > > >>>ext2: > > >>>real 2m, 15s > > >>>sys 0m, 14s > > >>> > > >>>reiser4(unix file) > > >>>real 2m, 7s > > >>>sys 0m, 23s > > >>> > > >>>reiser4(cryptcompress, lzo1, 64K) > > >>>real 2m, 13s > > >>>sys 0m, 11s > > > > > >Just curious - does your crypt plugin reside in user space? > > > > Nop. > > This is just wrappers for linux crypto api, zlib, etc.. > > so user time is zero and not interesting. > > Then why is the sys time lower than the "plain" writes on ext2 and > reiser4? Surely compressing isn't for free, yet the sys time is lower on > the compression write than the others. I guess the compression was done by the background writeout daemon. CPU utilization numbers would say more than sys time. -- Alex. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) 2006-01-26 15:33 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-26 18:17 ` Edward Shishkin @ 2006-01-27 7:30 ` Hans Reiser 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Hans Reiser @ 2006-01-27 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: Edward Shishkin, LKML, Reiserfs mail-list Jens Axboe wrote: >On Wed, Jan 25 2006, Hans Reiser wrote: > > >>Notice how CPU speed (and number of cpus) completely determines >>compression performance. >> >>cryptcompress refers to the reiser4 compression plugin, (unix file) >>refers to the reiser4 non-compressing plugin. >> >>Edward Shishkin wrote: >> >> >> >>>Here are the tests that vs asked for: >>>Creation (dd) of 20 tarfiles (the original 200M file is in ramfs) >>>Kernel: 2.6.15-mm4 + current git snapshot of reiser4 >>> >>>------------------------------------------ >>> >>>Laputa workstation >>>Uni Intel Pentium 4 (2.26 GHz) 512M RAM >>> >>>ext2: >>>real 2m, 15s >>>sys 0m, 14s >>> >>>reiser4(unix file) >>>real 2m, 7s >>>sys 0m, 23s >>> >>>reiser4(cryptcompress, lzo1, 64K) >>>real 2m, 13s >>>sys 0m, 11s >>> >>> > >Just curious - does your crypt plugin reside in user space? > > > No, kernel. It would have to encrypt+compress with every write to be in user space, we encrypt+compress only at flush time, and that is a key optimization (encryption is disabled at the moment due to needing a little API work, but....) for file sets that are cachable. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-01-28 16:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <43D7C6BE.1010804@namesys.com> 2006-01-25 18:59 ` random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) Hans Reiser 2006-01-26 15:33 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-26 18:17 ` Edward Shishkin 2006-01-26 18:56 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-26 20:41 ` Edward Shishkin 2006-01-27 7:43 ` Hans Reiser 2006-01-27 8:09 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-27 8:06 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-27 8:14 ` Hans Reiser 2006-01-27 8:21 ` Jens Axboe 2006-01-27 8:41 ` Hans Reiser 2006-01-28 16:53 ` Alexander Zarochentsev 2006-01-27 7:30 ` Hans Reiser
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).