[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141212145443.GB17783@thunk.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:54:43 -0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: alex chen <alex.chen@...wei.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: A doubt on journal_async_commit option
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 02:03:32PM +0800, alex chen wrote:
> This commit 0e3d2a6313(ext4: Fix async commit mode to be safe by using
> a barrier) show that using journal_async_commit feature has a 50%
> performance improvement. But I tested in SUSE Linux Enterprise Server
> 11 SP3(linux kernel 3.0.93) and Red Hat Enterprise linux 6.4(linux
> kernel 2.6.32), the result show this feature has no performance
> improvement.
> My test command:
> mount /dev/sdb /mnt/sdb
> ./fs_mark -d /mnt/sdb/ -s 10240 -n 1000
> umount
>
> mount /dev/sdb /mnt/sdb -o journal_async_commit
> ./fs_mark -d /mnt/sdb/ -s 10240 -n 1000
> umount
>
> My test result:
> FSUse% Count Size Files/sec App Overhead
> 6 1000 10240 42.1 10671
> vs.
> -o journal_async_commit
> FSUse% Count Size Files/sec App Overhead
> 6 1000 10240 63.9 10625
Um, the files per second went up from 42.1 to 63.9 --- that's a 50%
improvement, yes?
- Ted
--
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