[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