linux-ext4 - Re: Test results for ext4

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: <1212169712.8596.76.camel@BVR-FS.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 May 2008 10:48:32 -0700
From:	Mingming <cmm@...ibm.com>
To:	Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>
Cc:	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Test results for ext4


On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 17:50 +0200, Valerie Clement wrote:
> Hi all,
> 

Hi Valerie,

> Since a couple of weeks, I did batches of tests to have some performance
> numbers for the new ext4 features like uninit_groups, flex_bg or
> journal_checksum on a 5TB filesystem.
> I tried to test allmost all combinations of mkfs and mount options, but
> I put only a subset of them in the result tables, the most significant
> for me.
> 

Thanks, that's very helpful.

> I had started to do these tests on a kernel 2.6.26-rc1, but I'd got several
> hangs and crashes occuring randomly outside ext4, sometimes in the slab
> code or in the scsi driver eg., and which were not reproductible.
> Since 2.6.26-rc2, no crash or hang occur with ext4 on my system.
> 
> The first results and the test description are available here:
> http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20080530/ffsb-write-2.6.26-rc2.html

Interesting nomballoc is faster than default (with mballoc) about 3%,
but the fragmentation is much better.

> http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20080530/ffsb-readwrite-2.6.26-rc2.html
> 


> I will complete them in the next days.
> 
> In the first batch of tests, I compare the I/O throughput to create
> 1-GB files on disk in different configurations. The CPU usage is also
> given to show mainly how the delayed allocation feature reduces it.
> The average number of extents per file shows the impact of the
> multiblock allocator and the flex_bg grouping on the file fragmentation.
> At last, the fsck time shows how the uninit_groups feature reduces the
> e2fsck duration.
> 
Don't know if Jose has any suggestions, I am curious what's the impact
of flex bg alone on fsck perf?

> In the second batch of tests, the results show improvements in transactions
> -per-second throughput when doing small files writes, reads and creates
> when using the flex_bg grouping.
> The same ffsb test on an XFS filesystem hangs, I will try to have traces.
> 

> If you are interested in other tests, please let me know.
> 
I also wondering if you get a chance to test larger inode (>256 bytes)
with uninit group and flex bg? 

>    Valérie
> 
> 
> --
> 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

--
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