linux-ext4 - Re: Ext4 benchmarks

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

Message-ID: <460A3010.6080201@bull.net>
Date:	Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:06:24 +0200
From:	Jean-Pierre Dion <jean-pierre.dion@...l.net>
To:	jrs@...ibm.com
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Ext4 benchmarks

Hi Jose,

thank you for the feedback.

We took your remarks into account and we are doing some perfs with
iozone (close to desktop activity, mono-thread) and ffsb (allows to run 
benchs
in a multi-thread activity like a server does, different blocks sizes...).

We compare ext3 and ext4 (with extents, w/ and w/o del alloc...)...

We will publish the results on bullopensource.org


jean-pierre


Jose R. Santos wrote:
> Jean-Pierre Dion wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we already discussed during the conf calls what
>> benchmarks should be ran on ext4.
>>
>> As we have OLS paper on the table we were thinking
>> here at Bull what bench t run and on which kernel.
>>
>> If we want trying to compare ext3 and ext4, I guess we
>> should at least show that :
>> - ext4 has equivalent perfs than ext3,
>>   
>
> Define equivalent performance.
>
> Are the workloads only going to be focused on single repetitive 
> operations or simulation of actual desktop/server environments?  How 
> about performance on an aged filesystem?
>> - improvements done for ext3 are still in ext4 (mb alloc, del alloc...).
>>
>> So  we were wondering what's best to do :
>> - run on 2.6.19 (includes del alloc and mb alloc if I am not wrong),
>> - run on 2.6.20 (lacks mb alloc),
>>   
>
> What about system configurations?  While a desktop configuration would 
> be easy to come by, a server configuration needs a bit more thought.  
> Will ext4 perform better than ext3 in a wide range of storage 
> configuration that scale from a couple thousands IOPS to several 
> hundred thousand IOPS?
>
> Having baseline data on other filesystems like XFS or JFS would be 
> interesting as well to see how well ext4 stacks up to the competition. :)
>> - select relevant benchs (iozone...).
>>   
>
> I haven checked IOzone in quite a bit but last time I checked FFSB had 
> a couple of capabilities that are not available in IOzone like multi 
> threading on a shared data set and a very customizable IO operations 
> to attempt to simulate real IO patterns seen on workloads.  Might be 
> worth a look if your interested in compiling a very comprehensive set 
> of results
>> What do you think ?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> jean-pierre
>>   
>
> -JRS
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html