[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070427203821.GJ5967@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:38:21 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To: Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>
Cc: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Large File Deletion Comparison (ext3, ext4, XFS)
On Apr 27, 2007 15:41 +0200, Valerie Clement wrote:
> As asked by Alex, I included in the test results the file fragmentation
> level and the number of I/Os done during the file deletion.
>
> Here are the results obtained with a not very fragmented 100-GB file:
>
> | ext3 ext4 + extents xfs
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> nb of fragments | 796 798 15
> elapsed time | 2m0.306s 0m11.127s 0m0.553s
> |
> blks read | 206600 6416 352
> blks written | 13592 13064 104
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> And with a more fragmented 100-GB file:
>
> | ext3 ext4 + extents xfs
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> nb of fragments | 20297 19841 234
> elapsed time | 2m18.914s 0m27.429s 0m0.892s
> |
> blks read | 225624 25432 592
> blks written | 52120 50664 872
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> More details on our web site:
> http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20070404/FileDeletion.html
Ah, one thing that is only mentioned in the URL is that the "IO count" is
in units of 512-byte sectors. In the case of XFS doing logical journaling
this avoids a huge amount of double writes to the journal and then to the
filesystem. I still think ext4 could do better than it currently does.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists