Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:44:06 -0700 (PDT) | From | Shantanu Goel <> | Subject | Re: ext3 multiple thread streaming write performance with 2.6.9 |
| |
Thanks for the pointer Arjan. That worked out well. Here are the numbers I got for 2.6.9 with reservation patches applied from 2.6.9-mm1.
ext3:data=ordered,reservation: 1: 47 48 48 (47) ext3:data=ordered,reservation: 2: 47 44 45 (46) ext3:data=ordered,reservation: 4: 45 43 45 (44) ext3:data=writeback,reservation: 1: 47 49 48 (48) ext3:data=writeback,reservation: 2: 48 46 44 (46) ext3:data=writeback,reservation: 4: 46 45 45 (45) ext2: 1: 53 55 54 (54) ext2: 2: 42 52 51 (48) ext2: 4: 21 26 25 (24) xfs: 1: 53 53 53 (53) xfs: 2: 48 53 51 (51) xfs: 4: 43 47 46 (45)
--- Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 21:04 -0700, Shantanu Goel > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am seeing extremely variable and poor > performance > > with ext3 in the presence of multiple streaming > > writers. Below are the results of some tests I > have > > conducted with iozone. XFS appears to be most > > consistent performer for this workload, followed > by > > ext2 and finally ext3. Has this been observed > > elsewhere? If so, is it possible to tune ext3 to > > perform better on this workload? > > yes you should use the reservations patch from the > -mm tree; > see http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/reservations.png > for a graph of the difference > >
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail - 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/
| |