| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:42:59 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> To: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: More testing: 4x parallel 2G writes, sequential reads I tried ext4 vs. xfs doing 4 parallel 2G IO writes in 1M units to 4 different subdirectories of the root of the filesystem: http://people.redhat.com/esandeen/seekwatcher/ext4_4_threads.png http://people.redhat.com/esandeen/seekwatcher/xfs_4_threads.png http://people.redhat.com/esandeen/seekwatcher/ext4_xfs_4_threads.png and then read them back sequentially: http://people.redhat.com/esandeen/seekwatcher/ext4_4_threads_read.png http://people.redhat.com/esandeen/seekwatcher/xfs_4_threads_read.png http://people.redhat.com/esandeen/seekwatcher/ext4_xfs_4_read_threads.png At the end of the write, ext4 had on the order of 400 extents/file, xfs had on the order of 30 extents/file. It's clear especially from the read graph that ext4 is interleaving the 4 files, in about 5M chunks on average. Throughput seems comparable between ext4 & xfs nonetheless. Again this was on a decent HW raid so seek penalties are probably not too bad. -Eric - 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