Hi! (I'm surprised that ext2/ext3/ext4 all use the same mailing list ;-) Maybe some of you find there performance data interesting. Personally I found them surprising (expecting ext4 to outperform ext2 and ext3)... >>> Andrew Eross <eross@xxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 06.02.2014 um 16:59 in Nachricht <CAL_tfFdS4suKqn7ZFSkFGQ1rE7qEhsyyGOs0RqV_Ow71J_Ri8Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Hi guys, > > Ulrich - thanks for the suggestions - btrfs in particular is certainly > worth a shot. > > Quanah - very cool to hear about the 12.04 kernel and ext2 suggestions. > thanks! > > I've just run some new tests on a similar machine with 12.04.4 LTS and a > newly installed 3.11.0-15-generic x86_64 kernel. > > Exact same testing method as before, 10K records, etc: > > Running on an ext4 partition: > > Base-line, no extra options: 5m14s > With "writemap" enabled: 9m40s > With "writemap+mapasync" enabled: 4m35s > > Overall, about the same as 10.04 for me. > > I created a new ext2 partition to give that a shot on the 12.04 box. > > Base-line, no extra options: 1m31s > With "writemap" enabled: 1m33s > With "writemap+mapasync" enabled: 1m41s > > Ahah! I'd say that's the killer answer. > > Summary for future generations who may see this thread: > > 1) Using ext2 for your db directory (on Ubuntu at least) is waay faster > than ext4 (~2-3x as fast according to my tests). This is the secret as far > as I'm concerned since you can use this while still using the most > conservative DB options that don't risk your data. > 2) Using "dbnosync+checkpoint" with mdb is the absolute fastest method, but > at the cost of risking data loss > > Cheers, > Andrew > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Ulrich Windl < > Ulrich.Windl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>> Andrew Eross <eross@xxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 05.02.2014 um 16:30 in >> Nachricht >> <CAL_tfFf2qW5BcT=Xs4uFOSUO=wL0AN=9CyfS+D-XYPLitMZ_aw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > Hi Quanah, >> > >> > Ubuntu 10.04 LTS >> > Linux 2.6.32-43-generic-pae #97-Ubuntu SMP Wed Sep 5 16:59:17 UTC 2012 >> i686 >> > GNU/Linux >> > The latest OpenLDAP 2.4.39 >> > All of those tests done with the mdb backend, of course, and the actual >> > file system is ext4 >> >> Did you try btrfs? I'd guess it could be faster for massive random writes. >> >> > >> > It's a fairly stock 10.04 system, no special config/kernel changes. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Andrew >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@xxxxxxxxxx >> >wrote: >> > >> >> --On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:52 PM -0200 Andrew Eross < >> >> eross@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, Dieter, Quanah. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I've been doing some experimenting with those mdb options. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I ran a few tests with inserting 10,000 records, wiping the DB in >> >>> between, and changing just the one option at a time: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Base-line, no extra options: 4m8sWith "writemap" enabled: 8m55s >> >>> >> >>> With "writemap+mapasync" enabled: 5m12s >> >>> With "dbnosync+checkpoint 0kb/1min": 0m14s >> >>> >> >> >> >> I know you answered some of this before, but please update with: >> >> >> >> What kernel? >> >> What OpenLDAP version? >> >> What Ubuntu release? >> >> What filesystem for the LDAP DB? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Quanah >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Quanah Gibson-Mount >> >> Architect - Server >> >> Zimbra, Inc. >> >> -------------------- >> >> Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration >> >> >> >> >> >> -- 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
