Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:21:23 +1100 | From | Nathan Scott <> | Subject | Re: performance of filesystem xattrs with Samba4 |
| |
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 06:38:40PM +1100, tridge@samba.org wrote: > ... > The biggest change from the kernels point of view is that Samba4 makes > extensive use of filesystem xattrs. Almost every file with have a > ... > I started some simple benchmarking today using the BENCH-NBENCH > smbtorture benchmark, with 10 simulated clients and loopback > networking on a dual Xeon server with 2G ram and a 50G scsi partition. > I used a 2.6.10-rc2 kernel. This benchmark only involves a > user.DosAttrib xattr of size 44 on every file (that will be the most > common situation in production use). > ... > xfs 62 MB/sec > xfs+xattr 40 MB/sec > xfs+2Kinode 63 MB/sec > xfs+xattr+2Kinode 58 MB/sec > ... > The XFS results with default options are rather disappointing, as XFS > has usually been a good performer for Samba workloads. Increasing the > inode size to 2k brought it back to a more reasonable level.
Interesting. There's been on-and-off discussion for some time as to whether the default mkfs parameters should be changed, this will add more fuel to that debate I expect.
I'm curious why you went to 2K inodes instead of 512 - I guess because thats the largest inode size with a 4K blocksize? If the defaults were changed, I expect it would be to switch over to 512 byte inodes - do you have numbers for that?
> To make it easier to benchmark with xattrs, I'm planning on doing a > new version of dbench with optional xattr support. That will allow > others to play with xattr performance for the above workload without
Ah great, thanks, I'll be keen to try that when its available.
cheers.
-- Nathan - 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/
| |