Eric Sandeen wrote: > I was talking to Ric about dump benchmarks, and he was of the impression > that dump may not be used that often anymore, at least in the > enterprise. (Ric, hope I'm paraphrasing correctly) > > Undaunted :) I ran off and tested an artificial backup scenario: > > * Untar a kernel tree into 128 different top level dirs > * Make a level 0 backup > * Untar a kernel tree into 128 MORE different top level dirs > * Make a level 1 backup > > 128 kernel trees uses about 6.5M inodes, and about 80G of space. > > I tested ext3 with dump; ext4 with tar, and xfs with xfsdump. > > for ext3: > dump -1 -u -f $DUMPDIR/dump1 $DATADIR > > for ext4: > tar --atime-preserve --xattr --after-date=$DUMPDIR/dump0.tar -cf > $DUMPDIR/dump1.tar $DATADIR > > for xfs: > xfsdump -F -l 1 -f $DUMPDIR/dump0 $DATADIR > > DUMPDIR and DATADIR were 2 partitions on the same (fast hardware) lun. > > Results: at Ric & hch's request here is tar on the other fs's as well, re-sorted by level 0 dump time. I put acp into the mix as well. Oh, and this time I remembered to set the elevator to something sane (noop) for this storage, oops (was cfq last time) Also, this time the dup/tar/acp was written to /dev/null rather than another filesystem. Interesting how routing to /dev/null alone changed the ranking quite a bit. level0 level1 ====== ====== ext4-acp 12m22s ------ ext3-acp 14m11s ------ ext4-tar 18m24s 34m56s ext3-dump 19m30s 35m30s xfs-dump 20m07s 40m24s ext3-tar 21m16s 42m41s xfs-tar 21m19s 46m13s xfs-acp 29m38s ------ -Eric -- 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
