Re: code stability (production readiness) and kernel versions

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

 



Hello,

My employer allowed me to publish the data, so here you go:
http://www.accelcloud.com/2012/04/18/linux-flashcache-and-bcache-performance-testing/

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Kent Overstreet
<koverstreet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hey, sorry for the delay. Was travelling and I've been slow to catch
> up on email...
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Alexandru Ionica
> <alexandru.ionica@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been doing several benchmarks (Phoronix test suite, disk suite) and
>> I'm really impressed with the performance when doing writeback caching. For
>> the benchmarks I did a git checkout and compiled the 3.1.0+ kernel. As the
>> wiki is outdated I am wondering if the patches have also been applied on a
>> kernel version which is used by server oriented distributions, meaning
>> kernel version 2.6.32 for example or if there is a way to apply the patches
>> (if they exist separately) to kernel version 2.6.32 .
>> I am interested in this specific version of the kernel as other constrains
>> impose it.
>
> Any chance you could share those benchmarks? I'll post them on the
> wiki (or give you an account). I could really use some benchmarks that
> are suitable for sharing, all the benchmarking I've done has been just
> focused on optimizing stuff.
>
>> Also ... do you think that your code is production ready when using bcache
>> to do writeback caching ? Of course I will keep testing but I'd like to
>> know if you think the code by now is production ready.
>
> Yeah, it is. Test it on your configuration, etc. etc. but writeback is
> pretty mature and well tested at this point.
>
>> Basically I plan to run a setup like: bcache device assembled from software
>> raid10 or raid0 (4 disk) + ssd ; on top of this a volume group ; on top of
>> logical devices drbd setup . We are running this for a long while without
>> bcache so the setup is stable and the new part here would be bcache.
>
> Sounds pretty reasonable.
>
>> P.S. during the benchmarks bcache outperformed in every way flashcache (I
>> tried two different sequential size settings with flash cache, both
>> underperformed)
>
> Cool! Would love to see the numbers :)
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Alexandru Ionica
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux