Re: A doubt on journal_async_commit option

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

 



On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 02:03:32PM +0800, alex chen wrote:
> This commit 0e3d2a6313(ext4: Fix async commit mode to be safe by using
> a barrier) show that using journal_async_commit feature has a 50%
> performance improvement. But I tested in SUSE Linux Enterprise Server
> 11 SP3(linux kernel 3.0.93) and Red Hat Enterprise linux 6.4(linux
> kernel 2.6.32), the result show this feature has no performance
> improvement.
> My test command:
> mount /dev/sdb /mnt/sdb
> ./fs_mark  -d  /mnt/sdb/  -s  10240  -n  1000
> umount
> 
> mount /dev/sdb /mnt/sdb -o journal_async_commit
> ./fs_mark  -d  /mnt/sdb/  -s  10240  -n  1000
> umount
> 
> My test result:
> FSUse%        Count         Size    Files/sec     App Overhead
>      6         1000        10240         42.1            10671
> vs.
> -o journal_async_commit
> FSUse%        Count         Size    Files/sec     App Overhead
>      6         1000        10240         63.9            10625

Um, the files per second went up from 42.1 to 63.9 --- that's a 50%
improvement, yes?

							- Ted
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux