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.