[CentOS] Filesystem for Maildir

Christopher Chan christopher at ias.com.hk
Tue Dec 4 11:52:45 UTC 2007


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.



More information about the CentOS mailing list