lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Subject[BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest
Date
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Using the osdl hardware (http://www.osdl.org) with contest
(http://contest.kolivas.net) I've conducted a set of benchmarks with
different filesystems. Note that contest does not claim to be a throughput
benchmark.

All of these use kernel 2.5.59

First a set of contest benchmarks with the io load on a different hard disk
containing each of the four filesystems:

io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2559ext3 3 89 84.3 2 5.5 1.13
2559reiser 3 87 86.2 2 5.7 1.10
2559jfs 3 87 86.2 3 5.7 1.10
2559xfs 3 87 86.2 2 4.5 1.10

I found it interesting that there is virtually no difference in kernel
compilation time with all fs. However jfs consistently wrote more during the
io load than the other fs.


This is a set of benchmarks with the kernel compilation and load all performed
on each of the fs:

ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2559ext3 2 96 82.3 2 5.2 1.23
2559jfs 2 103 73.8 0 0.0 1.32
2559reiser 2 100 78.0 0 1.0 1.27
2559xfs 2 97 82.5 2 5.2 1.23

Not sure why the jfs load shows up as 0 cpu% unless it's an accounting issue
within the kernel. Subtle differences between fs times.


xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2559ext3 2 97 79.4 2 6.2 1.24
2559jfs 2 136 55.9 0 0.0 1.74
2559reiser 2 104 75.0 0 4.8 1.32
2559xfs 2 105 72.4 1 7.6 1.33

Once again jfs shows up no cpu%. These results show signficant prolongation of
kernel compilation with repeated extracting of tars and jfs, without an
increase in load work done.


io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2559ext3 3 109 68.8 4 10.1 1.40
2559jfs 3 138 54.3 11 13.8 1.77
2559reiser 3 98 76.5 2 9.2 1.24
2559xfs 3 124 60.5 6 8.0 1.57

This shows the largest discrepancy with jfs holding up kernel compilation the
most and doing the most work and reiserfs at the other end. Cpu usage by the
jfs load seems to make sense here.


read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2559ext3 2 98 80.6 7 7.1 1.26
2559jfs 2 97 79.4 5 5.2 1.24
2559reiser 2 101 79.2 6 7.9 1.28
2559xfs 2 98 80.6 6 7.1 1.24

Interestingly reading has the opposite order to writing but with probably
insignificant differences in time. Note the lowish cpu usage by jfs again.

Comments?
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQE+OngeF6dfvkL3i1gRAvKhAJYtmOkN1kLVuBMKI7Ygm317nXrUAJ0Y8UWI
IIdOlvqomgW5eEL4ZQkyGA==
=YDEz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.065 / U:5.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site