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: <4846B5F9.8050906@bull.net>
Date:	Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:34:17 +0200
From:	Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Test results for ext4

Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Valerie Clement wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20080530/ffsb-readwrite-2.6.26-rc2.html
>>>
>> One other question on the tests; am I reading correctly that ext3 used
>> "data=writeback" but ext4 used the default data=ordered mode?
> 
> I was interested in the results, especially since ext3 seemed to pretty
> well match ext4 for throughput, although the cpu utilization differed.
> 
> I re-ran the same ffsb profiles on an 8G, 4-way opteron box, connected
> to a "Vendor: WINSYS   Model: SF2372" 2T hardware raid array with 512MB
> cache, connected via fibrechannel.
> 
> Reads go pretty fast:
> 
> # dd if=/dev/sdc bs=16M count=512 iflag=direct of=/dev/null
> 8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 23.2257 seconds, 370 MB/s
> 
> I got some different numbers....
> 
> This was with e2fsprogs-1.39 for ext3, e2fsprogs-1.40.10 for ext4, and
> xfsprogs-2.9.8 for xfs.
I was using xfsprogs-2.9.0, maybe too old version...
I'm updating them and I'll run my tests again.

> 
> I used defaults except; data=writeback for ext[34] and the nobarrier
> option for xfs.  ext3 was made with 128 byte inodes, ext4 with 256-byte
> (new default).  XFS used stock mkfs.  I formatted the entire block
> device /dev/sdc.
> 
> For the large file write test:
> 
> 	MB/s	CPU %
> ext3	140	 90.7
> ext4	182	 50.2
> xfs	222	145.0
> 
> And for the small random readwrite test:
> 
> 	trans/s	CPU %
> ext3	 9830	 12.2
> ext4	11996	 18.1
> xfs	13863	 23.5
> 
> Not sure what the difference is ...
> 
> If you have your tests scripted up I'd be interested to run all the
> variations on this hardware as well, as it seems to show more throughput
> differences...

I added a link to the scripts I used in the test description section in:
http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20080530/ffsb-write-2.6.26-rc2.html
http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20080530/ffsb-readwrite-2.6.26-rc2.html

   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