linux-kernel - Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKYAXd_fT0Qk4C=AovO6Gp_6pEET_=BdVLHEz1kzQbm_D2AgyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:58:59 +0900
From:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
To:	Sooman Jeong <77smart@...yang.ac.kr>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

Hello.

Would you share the result about random read ?

Thanks.

2012/10/16, Sooman Jeong <77smart@...yang.ac.kr>:
>
> This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs
> against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs.
>
>
> * test platform
> 　i) Desktop PC : Linux 3.6.1 (f2fs patched), Intel i5-2500 @3.3GHz
> quad-core, 8GB RAM, Transcend 16GB class 10 micro SD card
> 　ii) Galaxy-S3 : Linux 3.0.15 (f2fs ported), Android 4.0.4, DVFS turned off,
> Transcend 16GB class 10 micro SD card
>
>
> * experiment 1: buffered write(sequential and random, 4KByte write)
> ===================================================================
>
> F2FS surpasses other two filesystems in both random and sequential. In
> desktop and Galaxy S3, f2fs exhibits 2.5 and 1.6 times better performance in
> random write against EXT4, respectively. EXT4 is standard Android
> filesystem.
>
> buffered write (1GB file)
> +-------+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
> |       |           Desktop PC            |            Galaxy-S3
> |
> |
> +-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
> |       |sequential (MB/s)| random (IOPS) |sequential (MB/s) | random (IOPS)
> |
> +-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
> | EXT4  |        7.1      |     1073      |        6.7       |     1073
> |
> +-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
> | NILFS2|        6.8      |     1462      |        4.0       |     1272
> |
> +-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
> | F2FS  |       10.6      |     2675      |        6.9       |     1682
> |
> +-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
>
>
> * experiment 2: write + fsync(sequential and random)
> ====================================================
>
> F2FS surpasses other two filesystems in both random and sequential workload.
> In desktop and Galaxy S3, f2fs exhibits 2 and 1.5 times better performance
> in write+fsync random write against EXT4, respectively.
>
> write + fsync (100MB file)
> +-------+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
> |       |           Desktop PC            |            Galaxy-S3
> |
> |
> +-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
> |       |sequential (KB/s)| random (IOPS) |sequential (KB/s) | random (IOPS)
> |
> +-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
> | EXT4  |       511.8     |      125      |       383.4      |      119
> |
> +-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
> | NILFS2|       545.2     |      112      |       356.7      |       72
> |
> +-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
> | F2FS  |      1057.9     |      240      |       772.3      |      184
> |
> +-------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
>
> write() with fsync is to test the filesystem performance under Android
> SQLite operation.
>
>
> * experiment 3: mounting time
> ===============================
>
> To measure the mount time, we used two different scenarios. First, we
> mounted file system after formatting without rebooting system. Second, we
> mounted file system after rebooting in order to ensure any data cached in
> memory is flushed. Overall, EXT4 shows fastest mount time, and F2FS shows
> second best performance; however, we observed that F2FS takes longest time
> to mount right after formatting.
>
> mounting time with Transcend 16GB micro-SD
> +-------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
> |       |           Desktop PC              |            Galaxy-S3
>    |
> |
> +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
> |       |1st mount after  | after rebooting |1st mount after  | after
> rebooting |
> |       |format (msec)    | (msec)          |format (msec)    | (msec)
>    |
> +-------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
> | EXT4  |         11      |         20      |         20      |         40
>    |
> +-------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
> | NILFS2|        920      |       1013      |       1680      |       1630
>    |
> +-------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
> | F2FS  |       1486      |        161      |       2280      |       1570
>    |
> +-------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
>
>
> Sooman Jeong  ESOS Lab. Hanyang University.
> <77smart@...yang.ac.kr>
--
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/