lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] nilfs2: continuous snapshotting file system

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:25:55 +0300 (MET DST)
> Szabolcs Szakacsits <szaka@ntfs-3g.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> > > >> Some impressive benchmark results on SSD are shown in [3],
> > > >
> > > >heh. It wipes the floor with everything, including btrfs.
> >
> > It seems the benchmark was done over half year ago. It's questionable how
> > relevant today the performance comparison is with actively developed file
> > systems ...
> >
> > > >But a log-based fs will do that, initially. What will the performace
> > > >look like after a month or two's usage?
> > >
> > > I'm using NILFS2 for my home directory for serveral months, but so far
> > > I don't feel notable performance degradation.
> >
> > I ran compilebench on kernel 2.6.26 with freshly formatted volumes.
> > The behavior of NILFS2 was interesting.
> >
> > Its peformance rapidly degrades to the lowest ever measured level
> > (< 1 MB/s) but after a while it recovers and gives consistent numbers.
> > However it's still very far from the current unstable btrfs performance.
> > The results are reproducible.
> >
> > MB/s Runtime (s)
> > ----- -----------
> > btrfs unstable 17.09 572
> > ext3 13.24 877
> > btrfs 0.16 12.33 793
> > nilfs2 2nd+ runs 11.29 674
> > ntfs-3g 8.55 865
> > reiserfs 8.38 966
> > nilfs2 1st run 4.95 3800
> > xfs 1.88 3901
>
> err, what the heck happened to xfs? Is this usual?

vmstat typically shows that xfs does ... "nothing". It uses no CPU time and
doesn't wait for I/O either.

Szaka

--
NTFS-3G: http://ntfs-3g.org



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-20 23:51    [W:0.529 / U:2.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site