Comments on: btrfs 0.13 and XFS benchmarks http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks Computers, science, archaeology and other random burblings Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:18:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: HOWTO - Kubuntu 9.04, RAID-10, LVM2, and XFS… « Linux Free Trade Zone http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks/comment-page-1#comment-55386 HOWTO - Kubuntu 9.04, RAID-10, LVM2, and XFS… « Linux Free Trade Zone Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:35:30 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/?p=1116#comment-55386 [...] Links: http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/dist/documentation/benchmark.html [...] [...] Links: http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/dist/documentation/benchmark.html [...]

]]> By: Bonnie++ Results for XFS on Dell E4200 SSD « The Musings of Chris Samuel http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks/comment-page-1#comment-52463 Bonnie++ Results for XFS on Dell E4200 SSD « The Musings of Chris Samuel Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:16:32 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/?p=1116#comment-52463 [...] comparing with some old results on my home desktop system seems to show that the block I/O numbers are better, but the file manipulation stuff is much worse! [...] [...] comparing with some old results on my home desktop system seems to show that the block I/O numbers are better, but the file manipulation stuff is much worse! [...]

]]> By: petchema http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks/comment-page-1#comment-37970 petchema Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:50:58 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/?p=1116#comment-37970 Until it becomes the default, it can be worth tweaking XFS parameters to improve the speed of metadata operations. Quick test on my workstation (Linux 2.6.25.4, 2GB ram): # mkfs.xfs -f # mount -t xfs # bonnie++ -u nobody Version 1.03c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP attale 4G 10871 29 10931 2 8050 3 23348 61 37155 4 134.3 0 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 646 3 +++++ +++ 660 2 655 3 +++++ +++ 319 1 attale.agematis.loc,4G,10871,29,10931,2,8050,3,23348,61,37155,4,134.3,0,16,646,3,+++++,+++,660,2,655,3,+++++,+++,319,1 # mkfs.xfs -f -l lazy-count=1,version=2,size=128m -i attr=2 -d agcount=4 # mount -o logbsize=256k,nobarrier # bonnie++ -u nobody Version 1.03c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP attale 4G 11028 30 10690 2 8091 3 18795 48 34657 4 132.3 0 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 1011 4 +++++ +++ 707 2 1093 4 +++++ +++ 526 2 attale,4G,11028,30,10690,2,8091,3,18795,48,34657,4,132.3,0,16,1011,4,+++++,+++,707,2,1093,4,+++++,+++,526,2 Until it becomes the default, it can be worth tweaking XFS parameters to improve the speed of metadata operations. Quick test on my workstation (Linux 2.6.25.4, 2GB ram):

# mkfs.xfs -f
# mount -t xfs
# bonnie++ -u nobody

Version 1.03c ——Sequential Output—— –Sequential Input- –Random-
-Per Chr- –Block– -Rewrite- -Per Chr- –Block– –Seeks–
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
attale 4G 10871 29 10931 2 8050 3 23348 61 37155 4 134.3 0
——Sequential Create—— ——–Random Create——–
-Create– –Read— -Delete– -Create– –Read— -Delete–
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 646 3 +++++ +++ 660 2 655 3 +++++ +++ 319 1
attale.agematis.loc,4G,10871,29,10931,2,8050,3,23348,61,37155,4,134.3,0,16,646,3,+++++,+++,660,2,655,3,+++++,+++,319,1

# mkfs.xfs -f -l lazy-count=1,version=2,size=128m -i attr=2 -d agcount=4
# mount -o logbsize=256k,nobarrier
# bonnie++ -u nobody

Version 1.03c ——Sequential Output—— –Sequential Input- –Random-
-Per Chr- –Block– -Rewrite- -Per Chr- –Block– –Seeks–
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
attale 4G 11028 30 10690 2 8091 3 18795 48 34657 4 132.3 0
——Sequential Create—— ——–Random Create——–
-Create– –Read— -Delete– -Create– –Read— -Delete–
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 1011 4 +++++ +++ 707 2 1093 4 +++++ +++ 526 2
attale,4G,11028,30,10690,2,8091,3,18795,48,34657,4,132.3,0,16,1011,4,+++++,+++,707,2,1093,4,+++++,+++,526,2

]]> By: The Musings of Chris Samuel » Blog Archive » ZFS-FUSE Bonnie++ benchmark update http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks/comment-page-1#comment-19061 The Musings of Chris Samuel » Blog Archive » ZFS-FUSE Bonnie++ benchmark update Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:49:32 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/?p=1116#comment-19061 [...] Chris Samuel: Juice, that’s fine, my point is that (as is a general rule in computing) the only benchmark that... [...] [...] Chris Samuel: Juice, that’s fine, my point is that (as is a general rule in computing) the only benchmark that… [...]

]]> By: Chris Samuel http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks/comment-page-1#comment-19048 Chris Samuel Mon, 24 Mar 2008 04:33:42 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/?p=1116#comment-19048 Juice, that's fine, my point is that (as is a general rule in computing) the only benchmark that really matters is your workload. For the sort of workload I was testing the results were different, but that's just to be expected. If we were testing a video streaming system it'd be different again! ;-) Juice, that’s fine, my point is that (as is a general rule in computing) the only benchmark that really matters is your workload.

For the sort of workload I was testing the results were different, but that’s just to be expected. If we were testing a video streaming system it’d be different again! ;-)

]]> By: Russell Coker http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks/comment-page-1#comment-19041 Russell Coker Mon, 24 Mar 2008 02:22:09 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/?p=1116#comment-19041 Most people don't even try to get 100,000 sub-directories. Either hash the names or use the first character or two for names so that there are multiple levels of directory. The way Squid stores it's files is an example of how to work around such bottlenecks. Most people don’t even try to get 100,000 sub-directories. Either hash the names or use the first character or two for names so that there are multiple levels of directory. The way Squid stores it’s files is an example of how to work around such bottlenecks.

]]> By: juice http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks/comment-page-1#comment-19036 juice Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:24:52 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/?p=1116#comment-19036 i don't know, reiser4 was extremly fast for me, it was used as users partition only, files usually 10-100KB size. but it was not stable, i had few kernel oopses, and it was not worth it. XFS was slow for metadata, and operating on a dir with 100 000 subdirs was so slow, that it was just crazy. reiserfs is like 20-30% faster , talking about real life example, not tests. i personally think, that ext4 would be even faster than reiserfs, but i didn't dare to make users data partion on still dev fs. so when considering only stable FSes, i can only say that reiserfs is faster than xfs (xfs tweaked, meaning like 8 different options mkfs/mount time) , on real life example, when there are many small files and many directories. big files - i'm sure XFS would blew away reiserfs easly, but i don't need it. i don’t know, reiser4 was extremly fast for me, it was used as users partition only, files usually 10-100KB size. but it was not stable, i had few kernel oopses, and it was not worth it.

XFS was slow for metadata, and operating on a dir with 100 000 subdirs was so slow, that it was just crazy.

reiserfs is like 20-30% faster , talking about real life example, not tests. i personally think, that ext4 would be even faster than reiserfs, but i didn’t dare to make users data partion on still dev fs.

so when considering only stable FSes, i can only say that reiserfs is faster than xfs (xfs tweaked, meaning like 8 different options mkfs/mount time) , on real life example, when there are many small files and many directories.

big files – i’m sure XFS would blew away reiserfs easly, but i don’t need it.

]]> By: Russell Coker http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks/comment-page-1#comment-19035 Russell Coker Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:14:18 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/?p=1116#comment-19035 The XFS developers do a lot of regression testing at the high-end. XFS doesn't look as good on a simple benchmark as it may do when you have some unusual high load situation in real life. If you consider the value of your time and the value of uptime vs the cost of more disks then XFS starts to look a little more attractive too. The XFS developers do a lot of regression testing at the high-end. XFS doesn’t look as good on a simple benchmark as it may do when you have some unusual high load situation in real life.

If you consider the value of your time and the value of uptime vs the cost of more disks then XFS starts to look a little more attractive too.

]]> By: Chris Samuel http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks/comment-page-1#comment-19034 Chris Samuel Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:10:18 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/?p=1116#comment-19034 Forgot to mention - in the <a href="http://www.csamuel.org/articles/emerging-filesystems-200709/#id2537430">benchmarking I did</a> Reiser4 (when it didn't crash the box) was slower than ReiserFS and both ext3 and ext4 were faster than both the Reiser filesystems for the workload I was using. It's horses for courses, people should test their workload and pick whichever works best for them! Forgot to mention – in the benchmarking I did Reiser4 (when it didn’t crash the box) was slower than ReiserFS and both ext3 and ext4 were faster than both the Reiser filesystems for the workload I was using.

It’s horses for courses, people should test their workload and pick whichever works best for them!

]]> By: Chris Samuel http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks/comment-page-1#comment-19033 Chris Samuel Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:05:21 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/?p=1116#comment-19033 Whilst I did use ReiserFS in the past (prior to ext3 arriving) I've not used it for a long time - I don't really have a lot of confidence in it. Whilst I did use ReiserFS in the past (prior to ext3 arriving) I’ve not used it for a long time – I don’t really have a lot of confidence in it.

]]>