Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Oct 22, 2008 15:06 -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
We have set up a new page which is intended mainly for tracking the
performance of BTRFS, but in doing so we are testing other filesystems
as well (ext3, ext4, xfs and jfs). Thought some people here might find
the results useful.
The main page is here:
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/
Information about the machine configuration, tests run, how to reproduce
the run and link to graphs of all the results are provided off of this
page. When looking at any individual test, links are provided to the
detail output from the tests including iostat, mpstat, oprofile data and
more.
Steve,
thanks for posting the numbers. They are definitely interesting. On
the surface, ext4 is doing quite well overall (yay!),
Yes, that was good news. Along these lines if there is anything else we
can do to help out ext4, just let us know.
but the important
point to realize is that btrfs is also providing a lot of extra function
under the covers so it isn't necessarily a clear-cut answer on which one
to pick.
The extra CPU cost of btrfs will become increasingly irrelevant in the
future I think.
While I agree that CPU usage is becoming less and less of an issue, I
think that at this point in the development cycle of btrfs, we still
need to take a hard look at any areas where cpu usage is excessive, and
see if we can keep that to a minimum. This is the main reason we did
runs without checksumming, so we could see a better apple to apple
comparison, not because it is not a useful feature. It will be very
interesting to see how much HW checksumming changes this with Nehelam.
Steve
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
