On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 04:12:23PM -0700, Daniel McNeil wrote: > I am just starting to test and did a quick untar test to > see approximate performance of gfs compared to ext3. > I only have gfs mounted on 1 node for this test. > Here are the results: > > The command run was 'time tar xf /Views/linux-2.6.8.1.tar' > where /Views is an NFS mounted file system and the current > working directory is in a clean file system on a single > disk drive. > > real user sys > ext3 data=ordered 0m16.962s 0m0.552s 0m6.529s > ext3 data=journal 0m39.599s 0m0.501s 0m5.856s > gfs 1-node mounted 1m23.849s 0m0.890s 0m17.991s For me, gfs is about 3 times slower than ext3-ordered here (FWIW I'm not reading from NFS). GFS with dlm and nolock were about the same. > The 2nd test was removing the files (time rm -rf linux-2.6.8.1/) > > real user sys > ext3 data=ordered 0m1.225s 0m0.021s 0m1.048s > ext3 data=journal 0m1.286s 0m0.024s 0m1.038s > gfs 1-node mounted 0m49.565s 0m0.094s 0m8.191s GFS is 5 to 6 times slower than ext3 for me on this one. I'll let someone else give a more expert answer to your questions. I think you'll find, though, that in the absence of contention, locking isn't a very significant part of the fs performance. You can see this in your test by trying both lock_dlm and lock_nolock modules. > 1. Is GFS doing the equivalent of data=journal? no, not by default -- Dave Teigland <teigland@xxxxxxxxxx>
