[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877iat6n7k.fsf@frosties.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:09:35 +0200
From: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@....de>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
Cc: Szabolcs Szakacsits <szaka@...s-3g.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Porting Zfs features to ext2/3
Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52:26PM +0000, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
>> I did also an in memory test on a T9300@2.5, with disk I/O completely
>> eliminated. Results:
>>
>> tmpfs: 975 MB/sec
>> ntfs-3g: 889 MB/sec (note, this FUSE driver is not optimized yet)
>> ext3: 675 MB/sec
...
> So it's issueing lots of 4k writes, one page at a time, because it
> needs to track the completion of each block. This creates a
> significant CPU overhead, which dominates in an all-memory test.
> Although this is not an issue in real-life today, it will likely
> become an issue in real-life solid state disks (SSD's).
This already is a major issue for us. We are starting to use SAS raid boxes
that deliver >350MB/s write and >600MB/s read performance with lustre,
which is ext3 with patches. It is somewhat between ext3 and ext4 in
that it has some of its features but not all.
> Fortunately, ext4's blktrace when copying a large file looks like
> this:
That is promising. Once the 64BIT feature becomes usable we plan to
port lustre to use ext4 as base filesystem. The current 8TiB limit is
a real pain.
MfG
Goswin
--
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