| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1350449047509.2800.151.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:44:07 +0900 (GMT)
From: Sooman Jeong <77smart@...yang.ac.kr>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, YOUJIP WON <youjip.won@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance
Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:58:59 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>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>
As you have requested, I have attached result of read performance(iozone).
* experiment 4: read(sequential and random)
====================================================
F2FS shows slightly better read performance than other two filesystems in both
sequential and random workload.
buffered read (1GB file)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desktop PC Galaxy-S3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sequential (MB/s) random (IOPS) sequential (MB/s) random (IOPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXT4 16.4 1568 9.6 1395
NILFS2 16.6 1609 9.6 1440
F2FS 16.8 1643 9.7 1499
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* iozone command : iozone -i 0 -i 1 -i 2 -f /mnt/ext/test.txt -s 1G -r 4k -+n -e -U /mnt/ext
Sooman Jeong
Powered by blists - more mailing lists