![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 16:06, Peter Chubb wrote: > Hi folks, > We've been doing a few scalability measurements on disk arrays. We > know how to tune xfs to give reasonable performance. But I'm not sure > how to tune ext3, and the default parameters give poor performance. > > See http://scalability.gelato.org/DiskScalability/Results for the > graphs. > > iozone for 24 10k SATA disks spread across 3 3ware controllers gives a > peak read throughput on XFS of around 1050M/sec; but ext3 conks out > at around half that. The maximum single threaded read performance we > got was 450M/sec, and it's pretty constant from 12 through 24 > spindles. We see no difference between setting -E stride=XX and > leaving this parameter off. > > The system uses 64k pages; we can set XFS up with 64k blocks; it may > be that part of the problem is that ext3 can't use larger blocks. We > repeated the XFs measurements configuring the kernel and filesystem to > use 4k pages/blocks, and although the throughput is lower than with > the 64k page size, it's still significantly better than with ext3. > Moreover, configuring XFS with 4k blocks, but using 64k pages gives > results (not shown on the Wiki page) almost the same as the 64k > pages/64k blocks. > Ted mentioned that you can force ext3 mkfs to use "64k" as blocksize through "-b 65536" option. And also, while using 64K blocksize - can you compare performance with other mount options like: "writeback" and "nobh,writeback" ? I am curious. Thanks, Badari - 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: 2005-06-15 03:23 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||