On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:57:13PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Justin, > > In message <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101241024230.14640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you wrote: > > > > Some info on XFS benchmark with delaylog here: > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.xfs.general/34379 > > For the record: I tested both the "delaylog" and "logbsize=262144" on > two systems running Fedora 14 x86_64 (kernel version > 2.6.35.10-74.fc14.x86_64). > > > Test No. Mount options > 1 rw,noatime > 2 rw,noatime,delaylog > 3 rw,noatime,delaylog,logbsize=262144 > > > System A: Gigabyte EP35C-DS3R Mainbord, Core 2 Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83GHz, 4 GB RAM > --------- software RAID 5 using 4 x old Maxtor 7Y250M0 S-ATA I disks > (chunk size 16 kB, using S-ATA ports on main board), XFS > > Test 1: > > Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- > Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP > A1 8G 844 96 153107 19 56427 11 2006 98 127174 15 369.4 6 > Latency 13686us 1480ms 1128ms 14986us 136ms 74911us > Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- > A1 -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- > files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > 16 104 0 +++++ +++ 115 0 89 0 +++++ +++ 111 0 Only 16 files? You need to test something that takes more than 5 milliseconds to run. Given that XFS can run at >20,000 creates/s for a single threaded sequential create like this, perhaps you should start at 100,000 files (maybe a million) so you get an idea of sustained performance. ..... > I do not see any significant improvement in any of the parameters - > especially when compared to the serious performance degradation (down > to 44% for block write, 42% for block read) on system A. delaylog does not affect the block IO path in any way, so something else is going on there. You need to sort that out before drawing any conclusions. Similarly, you need to test something relevant to your workload, not use a canned benchmarks in the expectation the results are in any way meaningful to your real workload. Also, if you do use a stupid canned benchmark, make sure you configure it to test something relevant to what you are trying to compare... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
