Zbr's days.
←June→
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
←2008→
Months
Jan Feb Mar
Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep
Oct Nov Dec

About :: TODO :: Blog :: RSS :: Old blog :: Projects :: GIT :: Gallery :: Notes

Fri, 13 Jun 2008

The latest iozone benchmark of POHMELFS, NFS, XFS and Ext4.

1Gb of RAM, 8Gb files. SEAGATE ST3300007LC 10k rpm 300 Gb on Adaptec AIC7902 Ultra320 SCSI adapter.

Performance in KB/s.

NFS:

                                                   random  random
     KB  reclen   write rewrite    read    reread    read   write
8388608       8   53210   57769    24304    24448    1360    4775
8388608      16   54577   57481    23871    24080    2592    7937
8388608      32   54736   56203    24015    24114    4738   12637
8388608      64   52075   54051    23653    23555    7610   18475
8388608     128   52307   54636    23305    23375   13017   26584
8388608     256   52189   53030    23585    23531   15615   34390
8388608     512   52938   54063    23709    23882   17524   42781
8388608    1024   57458   57006    24187    24292   29701   43892
POHMELFS:
                                                   random  random
     KB  reclen   write rewrite    read    reread    read   write
8388608       8   66473   63721    74232    74288    1103    4953
8388608      16   52604   62339    73423    74259    2001    8438
8388608      32   53278   62283    73497    74115    3360   13849
8388608      64   56931   61370    73135    74077    5076   21063
8388608     128   59419   62743    72736    74122    8068   30279
8388608     256   60861   63094    73284    74554   10848   38869
8388608     512   59438   62081    73329    74441   17290   48722
8388608    1024   62790   62130    73322    74100   27741   46470
POHMELFS write speed about 10% faster, read speed 3-3.5 times faster (essentially disk/local fs IO limit, see below). POHMELFS random read speed is smaller, and that is task with the highest priority now, especially compared to local FS results.POHMELFS random write is slightly faster than NFS.

For comparison, local filesystem, used for tests.
mkfs.xfs -d agcount=75 -l size=64m /dev/sdc1;
mount -o logbufs=8,nobarrier,noatime,nodiratime,osyncisdsync /dev/sdc1 /mnt/:
                                                   random  random
     KB  reclen   write rewrite    read    reread    read   write
8388608       8   75124   60560    77672    77797    1860    5059
8388608      16   75044   60036    77754    77775    3601    8772
8388608      32   75958   62038    77593    77765    6821   14781
8388608      64   74728   59384    77688    77782   12475   23228
8388608     128   74889   59676    77731    77736   21734   32241
8388608     256   75022   59285    77676    77718   28833   40324
8388608     512   74885   59187    77653    77713   40013   48057
8388608    1024   74838   64217    77796    77765   55100   46104
And Ext4 to the group (mount options: rw,noatime,data=writeback,extents):
                                                   random  random
     KB  reclen   write rewrite    read    reread    read   write
8388608       8   72107   73017    77276    77335    1849    5015
8388608      16   72276   73849    77304    77287    3577    8666
8388608      32   72680   73647    77284    77326    6755   14394
8388608      64   71965   74287    77327    77288   12366   22513
8388608     128   72660   73864    77207    77343   21617   31160
8388608     256   72813   74058    77296    77338   28652   42003
8388608     512   72985   73317    77284    77343   40572   50619
8388608    1024   72184   74131    77264    77250   55649   50365
Nice graphs will be done, when I will write Lisp (no less :) parser for it.
Stay tuned!

/devel/fs :: Link / Comments (3)

Diego wrote at 2008-06-13 22:05:

The ext4 numbers look strangely identical to XFS :) (BTW, ext4 in 2.6.26-rc added barriers=1 as a default)

Zbr wrote at 2008-06-13 23:16:

Whoops, my fault xfs numbers were gotten from ext4 file :) Fixed, thank you.

Shehjar Tikoo wrote at 2008-06-14 13:26:

Interesting, looks like NFS rewrite performance is mostly fixed. It used to be about 50% of NFS writes, but the not-so-good thing is, NFS read performance is lower than its write performance...strange..

Please solve this captcha to be allowed to post (need to reload in a minute): 55 + 78

Comments are closed for this story.