Configuration: global-dhp__io-threaded-xfs Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-threaded-xfs Benchmarks: tiobench Summary ======= There have been many improvements in the sequential read/write case but 3.4 is noticably worse than 3.3 in a number of cases. Benchmark notes =============== mkfs was run on system startup. mkfs parameters -f -d agcount=8 mount options inode64,delaylog,logbsize=262144,nobarrier for the most part. On kernels to old to support delaylog was removed. On kernels where it was the default, it was specified and the warning ignored. The size parameter for tiobench was 2*RAM. This is barely sufficient for this particular test where the size parameter should be multiple times the size of memory. The running time of the benchmark is already excessive and this is not likely to be changed. =========================================================== Machine: arnold Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-threaded-xfs/arnold/comparison.html Arch: x86 CPUs: 1 socket, 2 threads Model: Pentium 4 Disk: Single Rotary Disk ========================================================== tiobench -------- This is a mixed bag. For low numbers of clients, throughput on sequential reads has improved. For larger number of clients, there are many regressions but this is not consistent. This could be due to weakness in the methodology due to both a small filesize and a small number of iterations. Random read is generally bad. For many kernels sequential write is good with the notable exception of 2.6.39 and 3.0 kernels. There was unexpected swapping on 3.1 and 3.2 kernels. ========================================================== Machine: hydra Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-threaded-xfs/hydra/comparison.html Arch: x86-64 CPUs: 1 socket, 4 threads Model: AMD Phenom II X4 940 Disk: Single Rotary Disk ========================================================== tiobench -------- Like arnold, performance for sequential read is good for low number of clients. Random read looks good. With the exception of 3.0 in general and single threaded writes for all kernels, sequential writes have generally improved. Random write has a number of regressions. Kernels 3.1 and 3.2 had unexpected swapping. ========================================================== Machine: sandy Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-threaded-xfs/sandy/comparison.html Arch: x86-64 CPUs: 1 socket, 8 threads Model: Intel Core i7-2600 Disk: Single Rotary Disk ========================================================== tiobench -------- Like hydra, sequential reads were generally better for low numbers of clients. 3.4 is notable in that it regressed and 3.1 was also bad which is roughly similar to what was seen on ext3. There are differences in the memory sizes and therefore the filesize and it implies that there is not a single cause of the regression. Random read has generally improved except with the obvious exception of the single-threaded case. Sequential writes have generally improved but it is interesting to note that 3.4 is worse than 3.3 and this was also seen for ext3. Random write is a mixed bad but again 3.4 is worse than 3.3. Like the other machines, 3.1 and 3.2 saw unexpected swapping. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
