[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B8BD3B0.3020502@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:48:16 +0300
From: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>
CC: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>, tytso@....edu,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Piszcz <ap@...arrain.com>
Subject: Re: EXT4 is ~2X as slow as XFS (593MB/s vs 304MB/s) for writes?
Justin Piszcz wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
>> On 2010-02-28, at 07:55, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>>> === CREATE RAID-0 WITH 11 DISKS
>>
>> Have you tried testing with "nice" numbers of disks in your RAID set
>> (e.g. 8 disks for RAID-0, 9 for RAID-5, 10 for RAID-6)? The mballoc
>> code is really much better tuned for power-of-two sized allocations.
>
> Hi,
>
> Yes, the second system (RAID-5) has 8 disks and it shows the same
> performance problems with ext4 and not XFS (as shown from previous
> e-mail), where XFS usually got 500-600MiB/s for writes.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/e7b189bcaa2c1cb4/ad6c2a54b678cf5f?show_docid=ad6c2a54b678cf5f&pli=1
>
>
> For the RAID-5 (from earlier testing): <- This one has 8 disks.
Note that for RAID-5, the "nice" number of disks is 9 as Andreas
said, not 8 as in your example.
/mjt
--
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