On 2014-01-27 10:58, Andreas Rohner wrote:
> The benchmarks are currently running. I will give you the results
> shortly.
Here are the promised results:
I used a 100GB nilfs2 volume on both a HDD and a SDD and the well known
fs_mark benchmark tool. The benchmark consisted of the following steps:
1. Write a 20GB file (static data)
2. fs_mark -d dir -L 135 -D 16 -t 16 -n 150 -s 131072 -S 1 -w 4096
3. Wait for the cleaner to reach max_clean_segments
The following key configuration options were used:
min_clean_segments 20%
max_clean_segments 22%
nsegments_per_clean 4
mc_nsegments_per_clean 4
cleaning_interval 0.5
mc_cleaning_interval 0.5
min_reclaimable_blocks 5%
mc_min_reclaimable_blocks 1%
use_set_suinfo
HDD:
Timestamp GB Written: 140.2588
Timestamp GB Read: 48.06372
Timestamp Runtime: 4145.151s
Timestamp Disk Util.: 94%
Patched GB Written: 120.1527
Patched GB Read: 28.28576
Patched Runtime: 3692.105s
Patched Disk Util.: 93%
SSD:
Timestamp GB Written: 210.2145
Timestamp GB Read: 48.79246
Timestamp Runtime: 3883.966s
Timestamp Disk Util.: 87%
Patched GB Written: 168.6009
Patched GB Read: 28.66516
Patched Runtime: 3566.425s
Patched Disk Util.: 90%
The disk utilization is measured after step 2, because after step 3 it
is always 78%.
The results for the HDD show, that the 20 GB of static data were moved
in the case of the normal timestamp policy and they were ignored in case
of the patched timestamp policy.
The results for the SSD were similar, but the difference in GBs written
is 40 GB instead of 20 GB, which is a bit strange.
The value of 1% for mc_min_reclaimable_blocks seems to be ideal, because
it is just enough, so that completely full segments fall below the
threshold and can be skipped.
br,
Andreas Rohner
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
