Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 04:10:10PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:39:04PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:15:23PM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
Here is a pointer to the older patch & some results:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg13121.html
I will retry this on some updated kernels, but would not expect to see a
difference since the code has not been changed ;-)
Ok here are the numbers with the original idea I had proposed.
type threads base patch speedup
sata 1 17.9 17.3 0.97
sata 2 33.2 34.2 1.03
sata 4 58.4 63.6 1.09
sata 8 78.8 80.8 1.03
sata 16 94.4 97.6 1.16
ram 1 2394.4 1878.0 0.78
ram 2 989.6 2041.1 2.06
ram 4 1466.1 3201.8 2.18
ram 8 1858.1 3362.8 1.81
ram 16 3008.0 3227.7 1.07
I've got to find a fast disk array to test this with, but the ramdisk results
make me happy, though they were kind of irratic, so I think the fast disk array
will be a more stable measure of how well this patch does, but it definitely
doesn't hurt the slow case, and brings stability to the fast case. Thanks much,
Hmm talking with ric I should just leave the single thread stuff alone. That
removes the slight speed regression seen above. Thanks,
Here are the results with the single thread stuff put back in and with 250HZ
instead of 1000HZ from before
type threads base patch
sata 1 21.8 21.6
sata 2 26.2 34.6
sata 4 48.0 58.0
sata 8 70.4 75.2
sata 16 89.6 101.1
ram 1 2505.4 2422.0
ram 2 463.8 3462.3
ram 4 330.4 3653.9
ram 8 995.1 3592.4
ram 16 1335.2 3806.5
Thanks,
Josef
These numbers are pretty impressive - we need to get a run on an array
backed file system as well to round out the picture and possibly an SSD
(anyone have one out there to play with)?
ric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
