[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DDE42D4A-C3E4-4E63-ADDF-B45A7C7B1A7D@dilger.ca>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 21:22:09 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
aswin@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] ext4: increase mbcache scalability
On 2013-09-25, at 12:43 PM, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote:
> On 09/21/2013 05:12 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> I just noticed that we have a patch for Lustre that adds a "no_mbcache" mount option to disable mbcache on a per-filesystem basis.
>>
>> The newest patch we have is based on FC19 (3.10 kernel), is this something that would be of interest if we submitted it upstream?
>>
>> http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/7263/8/ldiskfs/kernel_patches/patches/fc19/ext4-disable-mb-cache.patch
>>
>> Cheers, Andreas
>>
>
> Here are some of the improvement I saw with SELinux disabled.
To confirm, is this data on your "128-byte inode on ramdisk" config,
or is this on a system with a real disk and 256-byte inodes?
> On an 80 core machine,
>
> custom 15.5%
> disk 27.81
> fserver 5.33%
> new_dbase 9.06%
> new_fserver 5.45%
>
>
> On an 8 core machine,
>
> alltests 5.24
> custom 2.26
> shared 9.32
> short 24.08
>
> The rest is not noticably different.
This is a pretty significant price to pay for SELinux in any case.
I guess it is probably lower overhead with 256-byte inodes, but
anything that adds 5-25% overhead shouldn't be taken for granted.
Cheers, Andreas
--
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