Re: Filesystem for Maildir

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



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.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]
  Powered by Linux