Messages in this thread | | | From | Shawn Starr <> | Subject | [BENCHMARK] EXT3 vs EXT2 results with rmap14a and testing with contest 0.34 | Date | Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:16:26 -0400 |
| |
Sorry about the confusing email before. This should make more sense =)
These results compare EXT3 against EXT2 with rmap using the contest tool you can get it at: http://contest.kolivas.net
These tests are from a Athlon MP 2000+ w/ 512MB RAM
noload:
Kernel Time CPU 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 259.47 99% 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 267.66 97%
process_load:
Kernel Time CPU 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 318.91 80% 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 324.44 79%
io_halfmem:
Kernel Time CPU 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 306.82 87% 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 461.74 57%
io full mem:
Kernel Time CPU 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 325.39 82% 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 411.47 64%
full logs of the tests are:
WITH EXT2 ------------ noload Time: 259.47 CPU: 99% Major Faults: 770937 Minor Faults: 1173705 process_load Time: 318.91 CPU: 80% Major Faults: 742261 Minor Faults: 1169516 io_halfmem Time: 306.82 CPU: 87% Major Faults: 742000 Minor Faults: 1169497 Was writing number 33 of a 257Mb sized io_load file after 307 seconds io_fullmem Time: 325.39 CPU: 82% Major Faults: 742000 Minor Faults: 1169494 Was writing number 16 of a 514Mb sized io_load file after 337 seconds mem_load Time: 340.32 CPU: 79% Major Faults: 743307 Minor Faults: 1170011
WITH EXT3 -----------
noload Time: 267.66 CPU: 97% Major Faults: 771111 Minor Faults: 1173722 process_load Time: 324.44 CPU: 79% Major Faults: 742261 Minor Faults: 1169518 io_halfmem Time: 461.74 CPU: 57% Major Faults: 742000 Minor Faults: 1169496 Was writing number 34 of a 257Mb sized io_load file after 465 seconds io_fullmem Time: 411.47 CPU: 64% Major Faults: 742000 Minor Faults: 1169494 Was writing number 15 of a 514Mb sized io_load file after 425 seconds mem_load Time: 333.99 CPU: 81% Major Faults: 743320 Minor Faults: 1170021
NOTES: ====
As you can see, there's something DEFINATELY wrong here. EXT3 is much slower then EXT2. I converted the EXT3 disk back to EXT2 to do the second test.
Also, I specified no mount options for EXT3 (which means it uses ordered mode). The journal was created with tune2fs -j /dev/hda#
From #Kernelnewbies (snip) ============== <ShawnCONSOLE> riel uses EXT3 <riel> my cpu is slower <ShawnCONSOLE> but you have fast disks? <riel> so it doesn't fall idle as quickly as yours, when waiting on the disk <riel> not very fast ;) <riel> old 8 GB IDE disk <ShawnCONSOLE> so having a fast disk and a fast CPU causes the cpu to wait longer cause the disk finishes its tasks much faster then the cpu expects? <ShawnCONSOLE> mem load final test = 78% <ShawnCONSOLE> so final numbers: <ShawnCONSOLE> 99, 80%, 87%, 83%, 75% <riel> yes, a very fast CPU falls idle more quickly <riel> but it's very curious that ext3 is that much worse than ext2 <ShawnCONSOLE> thats much better. <riel> definately worth pointing out to the ext3 maintainers. - 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/
| |