[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F2F535D.7050202@sx.jp.nec.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:13:17 +0900
From: Kazuya Mio <k-mio@...jp.nec.com>
To: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
CC: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ext3: Reduce calling ext3_mark_inode_dirty() for
speedup
2012/02/03 22:28, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Kazuya Mio<k-mio@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
>> 2012/02/03 7:36, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> filesystem time(sec) call extX_mark_inode_dirty(times)
>>>> ---
>>>> ext3 220.5 50,338,104
>>>> ext3 (patched) 196.3 25,169,658
>>>> ext4 (*1) 190.3 28,465,799
>>>> ext4 (*2) 201.5 27,963,473
>>>> ext4 (default) 223.3 14,026,118
>>>>
>>>> *1 disable ext4-specific options (delalloc, extent, and so on)
>>>> *2 disable only delalloc option
>>>
>>> This shows that ext4 with extents+delalloc is _slower_ than ext3, which
>>> is very strange. In other similar tests of write performance (see
>>
>>
>> One more thing is that ext4+delalloc is slower than ext4+nodelalloc.
> And according to the data, maybe ext4+extent is also slower than ext4+noextent.
>
> What's the size of the fs? and what kind of the tested device?
I tested on Express5800/A1080a-S (4-way server with 8-core processors).
Filesystem size was 100GB. I used the 266GB LUN from the FC-SAN storage.
Regards,
Kazuya Mio
--
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