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
