lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Filesystem benchmarks: ext2 vs ext3 vs jfs vs minix
From
Date
Matthew Kirkwood <matthew@hairy.beasts.org> writes:

> PostgreSQL
> tuning? single ir mx-ir oltp mixed-oltp
> (sec) (tps) (sec) (tps) (sec)
> ext2 dd 1304.72 66.64 214.25 188.50 230.55
> dn 1288.31 65.93 209.57 234.08 213.75
> bn 1283.50 77.90 1867.71 192.43 226.77
>
> ext3 dd 1303.84 66.87 212.49 66.06 361.04
> dn 1288.03 64.62 209.27 111.41 278.54
> bn 1285.32 65.98 1996.41 90.05 307.79

This is ext3 with ordered data?

> minix dd 1305.26 67.38 207.74 193.90 228.81
> dn 1331.27 67.14 210.07 223.70 214.33
> bn 1299.24 89.58 1988.31 231.17 231.17

Wow minix is faster than ext2 @) That certainly looks strange.

Any chance to test XFS too?

> 3. The journalled filesystems do have measurable overhead
> for this workload.

Normally (non data journaling, noatime) journaling fs shouldn't have any
overhead for database load, because database files should be preallocated
and the database should do direct IO in/out the preallocated buffers
with the FS never doing any metadata writes, except for occassional inode
updates for mtime depending on what sync mode that DB uses (hmm, I guess a
nomtime or verylazymtime or alwaysasyncmtime mount option could be helpful
for that)

That's the theory, but doesn't seem to be the case in your test. I guess
your test is not very realistic then.

> 2. What does jfs do in the way of data journalling? Is it
> "ordered" or "writeback", in ext3-speak? (I assume
> fully journalled data would give much worse performance.)

Kind of ordered I believe.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans