linux-kernel - Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:07:03 +0900 (GMT)
From:	Sooman Jeong <77smart@...yang.ac.kr>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	77smart@...yang.ac.kr
Subject: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance


This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs.


* test platform
　i) Desktop PC : Linux 3.6.1 (f2fs patched), Intel i5-2500 @3.3GHz quad-core, 8GB RAM, Transcend 16GB class 10 micro SD card
　ii) Galaxy-S3 : Linux 3.0.15 (f2fs ported), Android 4.0.4, DVFS turned off, Transcend 16GB class 10 micro SD card


* experiment 1: buffered write(sequential and random, 4KByte write)
===================================================================

F2FS surpasses other two filesystems in both random and sequential. In desktop and Galaxy S3, f2fs exhibits 2.5 and 1.6 times better performance in random write against EXT4, respectively. EXT4 is standard Android filesystem.

buffered write (1GB file)
+-------+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
|       |           Desktop PC            |            Galaxy-S3             |
|       +-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
|       |sequential (MB/s)| random (IOPS) |sequential (MB/s) | random (IOPS) |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| EXT4  |        7.1      |     1073      |        6.7       |     1073      |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| NILFS2|        6.8      |     1462      |        4.0       |     1272      |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| F2FS  |       10.6      |     2675      |        6.9       |     1682      |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+


* experiment 2: write + fsync(sequential and random)
====================================================

F2FS surpasses other two filesystems in both random and sequential workload. In desktop and Galaxy S3, f2fs exhibits 2 and 1.5 times better performance in write+fsync random write against EXT4, respectively.

write + fsync (100MB file)
+-------+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
|       |           Desktop PC            |            Galaxy-S3             |
|       +-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
|       |sequential (KB/s)| random (IOPS) |sequential (KB/s) | random (IOPS) |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| EXT4  |       511.8     |      125      |       383.4      |      119      |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| NILFS2|       545.2     |      112      |       356.7      |       72      |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| F2FS  |      1057.9     |      240      |       772.3      |      184      |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+

write() with fsync is to test the filesystem performance under Android SQLite operation.


* experiment 3: mounting time
===============================

To measure the mount time, we used two different scenarios. First, we mounted file system after formatting without rebooting system. Second, we mounted file system after rebooting in order to ensure any data cached in memory is flushed. Overall, EXT4 shows fastest mount time, and F2FS shows second best performance; however, we observed that F2FS takes longest time to mount right after formatting.

mounting time with Transcend 16GB micro-SD
+-------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|       |           Desktop PC              |            Galaxy-S3              |
|       +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|       |1st mount after  | after rebooting |1st mount after  | after rebooting |
|       |format (msec)    | (msec)          |format (msec)    | (msec)          |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| EXT4  |         11      |         20      |         20      |         40      |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| NILFS2|        920      |       1013      |       1680      |       1630      |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| F2FS  |       1486      |        161      |       2280      |       1570      |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+


Sooman Jeong  ESOS Lab. Hanyang University.
<77smart@...yang.ac.kr>