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: <1350905803450.1936.166.00.1.77smart@hanyang.ac.kr>
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:36:43 +0900 (GMT)
From:	Sooman Jeong <77smart@...yang.ac.kr>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Sooman Jeong <77smart@...yang.ac.kr>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@...eyko.com>
Subject: Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance


On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:26:38 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>>>> This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against
>>>> existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hmm, flashes are actually optimized for VFAT, right? Can you compare
>>> against that?
>>> 
>> 
>> Do you mean SD-cards? Because, as I can understand, "raw" flash (I mean NAND chip)
>> hasn't any special filesystem-related optimization. Moreover, as I know, this optimization
>> takes place in the begin of device (because FAT metadata is placed in the volume's begin).
>> But if you have several partition on a device then you haven't any optimizations for second
>> and next FAT partitions. So, in-place modified metadata of f2fs is placed in the begin of
>> the volume also.
>> 
>>Or, maybe, do you mean some another special optimization for VFAT? 
>> 
>
>I meant SD-card, sorry. Compare factory-formatted VFAT on SD card with
>f2fs running on the same partition.
>
>									Pavel
>-- 
>(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
>(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Hi,

As requested, I compared performance of VFAT with f2fs on SD card.
Following is summary of the measurement.

VFAT shows better performance on both random write+fsync and buffered-sequential write than f2fs.
However, on buffered-random and sequential write+fsync, f2fs still exhibits better performance 
than other filesystems.


* buffered write (1GB file), 4KByte write
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     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      
  VFAT           7.3            1108               7.3             1075               
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


* write + fsync (100MB file), 4KByte write
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     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
  VFAT          356.5            260              474.4             373
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


* buffered read (1GB file), 4KByte read
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     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
  VFAT           16.6            1592               9.6             1501
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * 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