Heitor A.M. Cardozo wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
Heitor A. M. Cardozo wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
Heitor A. M. Cardozo wrote:
Hi,
A draft with results of my benchmark based on fsbench is available in http://www.htiweb.inf.br/benchmark/fsbench.htm.
The methodology and the conclusion i will publish later, however, it shows that the XFS obtained better performance and EXT3 had results that can now compete in this environment.
Thank you very much Heitor. May I trouble you to publish the files that fsbench outputs or at least the summary files?
Ok Christopher, now the tests are available for download on site.
Any suggestions you may have to improve this benchmark are much appreciated.
Well...creating graphs like the ones Bruce made would be nice...
I am writing an awk script to pull out the averages from the summary file. I already have the reader times done, all I need to do is get the averages for the writers and then calculate the deliveries per second for the different number of writers being invoked.
I agree and thank you if send me the average values or even the graphs.
Here they are: The reader/writer times are in milliseconds and they are the amount of time needed to read/write one message.
jfs filesystem results: Reader time Writer time Deliveries per second No. of writers: one 0.058 6.339 157.754 No. of writers: two 0.102 19.12 104.603 No. of writers: four 0.636 122.947 32.5343 No. of writers: eight 1.782 867.593 9.22091 No. of writers: sixteen 6.744 2917.31 5.4845
reiser filesystem results: Reader time Writer time Deliveries per second No. of writers: one 0.154 20.829 48.01 No. of writers: two 0.223 63.141 31.6751 No. of writers: four 0.373 173.847 23.0087 No. of writers: eight 0.576 945.43 8.46176 No. of writers: sixteen 0.795 3812.84 4.19635
ext3o+htree filesystem results: Reader time Writer time Deliveries per second No. of writers: one 0.059 16.149 61.9233 No. of writers: two 0.087 87.719 22.8001 No. of writers: four 0.255 237.293 16.8568 No. of writers: eight 0.536 1184.24 6.75538 No. of writers: sixteen 0.753 4296.05 3.72435
ext3w+htree filesystem results: Reader time Writer time Deliveries per second No. of writers: one 0.059 14.538 68.7853 No. of writers: two 0.088 61.856 32.3332 No. of writers: four 0.364 208.894 19.1485 No. of writers: eight 0.815 1142.34 7.00315 No. of writers: sixteen 1.692 4385.77 3.64816
xfs filesystem results: Reader time Writer time Deliveries per second No. of writers: one 0.04 4.662 214.5 No. of writers: two 0.046 9.818 203.707 No. of writers: four 0.103 38.783 103.138 No. of writers: eight 0.277 301.13 26.5666 No. of writers: sixteen 2.038 1716.02 9.32388
ext3 again takes the slowest performing title overall as expected...in fact it appears not much as changed fs vs fs wise since Bruce Guenter's tests. But I am surprised at the overall performance regressions in comparison to 2.6.5/6 kernels with regards to deliveries vs amount of writers. Heitor, you are using a 3ware 95xx or 96xx with BBU write cache and write caching on right? How much RAM do you have for your cache? How is your raid10 configured? I cannot believe a four disk raid0 array can beat a software raid mirror of scsi disks as used by Bruce Guenter.
Any suggestions to publish the results? wiki.centos.org?
I'll ask on the docs list.
One thing that I do have in mind due to curiosity is what ext3j would look like...
Ok, I added the log for ext3j in file log.tar.gz available on site.
Thanks Heitor. Is the site down or something? I cannot access the page....it is timing out.