Eric Whitney has very thoughtfully provided an updated set of ext4 scalability data (with comparisons against ext3, xfs, and btrfs) comparing performance between 3.1 and 3.2, and comparing performance between 3.2 and 3.6-rc3. I've made his compressed tar file available at: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/ext4_scaling_data.tar.xz https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/ext4_scaling_data.tar.gz His comments on this data are: It contains two sets of data - one comparing 3.2 and 3.1 (this was the last data set I posted publicly) and another comparing 3.6-rc3 and 3.2. 3.6-rc3 was the last data set I collected, and until now, I hadn't prepared graphs for it. The graphical results are consistent with what I'd reported verbally over the first 2/3 of last year - not much change between 3.2 and 3.6-rc3. The last large change I could see occurred in 3.2, as mentioned in the notes. The tarball unpacks into a directory named ext4_scaling_data and contains a few subdirectories. The directories named 3.2 and 3.6-rc3 map to the data sets described above. Each contains a file named index.html which you can open with a web browser to see the graphs, browse the raw data, ffsb profiles and lockstats, etc. Hopefully you'll find the lockstats and other information useful, even though stale (3.6-rc3 became available the last week in August 2012). Thanks, Eric for making this data available! - Ted P.S. The btrfs numbers were shockingly bad, even for the random write workload, which was unexpected for me. I wonder if checksumming was enabled by default, or some such, and this was hampering their performance... -- 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
