[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100519105706.8821.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:05:20 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
vgoyal@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4 v4] ext3/4: enhance fsync performance when using CFQ
Hi Jeff,
> This patch series addresses a performance problem experienced when running
> io_zone with small file sizes (from 4KB up to 8MB) and including fsync in
> the timings. A good example of this would be the following command line:
> iozone -s 64 -e -f /mnt/test/iozone.0 -i 0
> As the file sizes get larger, the performance improves. By the time the
> file size is 16MB, there is no difference in performance between runs
> using CFQ and runs using deadline. The storage in my testing was a NetApp
> array connected via a single fibre channel link. When testing against a
> single SATA disk, the performance difference is not apparent.
offtopic:
Can this patch help to reduce a pain of following much small files issue?
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=578635
Now, userland folks think sync() is faster than fsync() on ext4. I don't
hope spread this unrecommended habit widely.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists