Date:	Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:42:18 -0400
From:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
CC:	Steve Brown <sbrown25@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext4 benchmark questions

On 04/22/2010 06:20 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Steve Brown wrote:
>    
>>>> I'll start with the craziest one: noatime.  Everything I have read
>>>> says that the noatime option should increase both read and write
>>>> performance.  My results are finding that write speeds are comparable
>>>> with or without this option, but read speeds are significantly faster
>>>> *without* the noatime option.  For example, a 16GB file reads about
>>>> 210MB/s with noatime but reads closer to 250MB/s without the noatime
>>>> option.
>>>>          
>>> the kernel uses "relatime" now by default, which gives you most of the
>>> benefit already.
>>>        
>> So should I see any performance change by using the noatime mount option at all?
>>      
> they are not exactly the same thing, so noatime may be -slightly-
> faster in some cases than relatime.
>
>    
>>>> Next is the write barrier.  I'm an in a fully battery-backed
>>>> environment, so I'm not worried about disabling it.  From my testing,
>>>> setting barrier=0 will improve write performance on large files
>>>> (>10GB), but hurts performance on smaller files (<10GB).  Read
>>>> performance is effected similarly.  Is this to be expected with files
>>>> of this size?
>>>>          
>>> not expected by me; barriers == drive write cache flushes, which I
>>> would never expect to speed things up...
>>>        
>> hmmm... this would seem to conflict with the docs in the kernel, especially:
>>
>> "Write barriers enforce proper on-disk ordering
>> of journal commits, making volatile disk write caches
>> safe to use, at some performance penalty.  If
>> your disks are battery-backed in one way or another,
>> disabling barriers may safely improve performance."
>>      
> what you saw is in conflict with what is expected, yes; I don't know
> why barriers would ever increase performance.
>
> (my description of barriers as drive write caches isn't in conflict
> with the docs, I just said how they're implemented)
>    

Barriers when working should never make things faster, at best, we 
should have parity.

Also important to note that barriers should be disabled if you hardware 
RAID card exports itself as a "write through" cache, even if you enable 
barriers on the command line.

What controller are you using and what kind of drives do you have in the 
back end?

ric


>    
>>>> Next is the data option.  I am seeing a significant increase in read
>>>> performance when using data=ordered vs data=writeback.  Reading is as
>>>> much as 20% faster when using data=ordered.  The difference in write
>>>> performance is almost none with this option.
>>>>          
>>> data=writeback is not safe for data integrity; unless you can handle
>>> scrambled files post-crash/powerloss, don't use it.
>>>        
>> I'm not worried about powerloss.  The kernel docs seem to imply that
>> data=[journaled,ordered] come with a performance hit.  My results
>> would indicate otherwise.  Should I be seeing this kinda of
>> performance difference?
>>      
> Sorry, I misread...  I also don't know why reading would be much affected
> at all by the journalling mode, which journals -writes- (reading can
> update metadata, but not much, esp. if you have noatime/relatime).
>
> -Eric
>
>    
>>>> Finally is the commit option.  I did my testing mounting with commit=5
>>>> and commit=90.  While my read performance increased with commit=90, my
>>>> write performance improved by as much as 30% or more with commit=5.
>>>>          
>>> not sure offhand what to make of decreased write performance with a longer
>>> commit time...
>>>        
>> Steve
>>      

--
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