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: <54B92072-C95C-404F-A058-CF77098855C4@dubeyko.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:10:46 +0400
From:	Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@...eyko.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Sooman Jeong <77smart@...yang.ac.kr>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance


On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:07 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:

> Hi!
> 
>> As requested, I compared performance of VFAT with f2fs on SD card.
>> Following is summary of the measurement.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> 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)  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...
>>  F2FS          10.6            2675               6.9             1682      
>>  VFAT           7.3            1108               7.3             1075               
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Ok, f2fs is bit faster on desktop PC and a bit slower on S3. Good.
> 
> 
>> * write + fsync (100MB file), 4KByte write
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>                     Desktop PC                         Galaxy-S3
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>         sequential (KB/s)  random (IOPS)  sequential (KB/s)   random (IOPS)  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  F2FS         1057.9            240              772.3             184
>>  VFAT          356.5            260              474.4             373
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Ok, random access on VFAT is a lot faster on S3 (and only very
> a bit on PC). Any idea why results are so different between PC and S3?
> Does F2FS need significantly more CPU? Does F2FS need significantly
> more RAM? (Booting PC with low mem= option my answer that).
> 

Yes, I think that f2fs really needs more CPU and memory for functioning. The f2fs keeps more metadata as VFAT, as I understand. Moreover, it manages six active logs at runtime and GC can works in background. All of it needs in more CPU power.

With the best regards,
Vyacheslav Dubeyko.

> Anyway, it looks like F2FS is pretty fast filesystem...
> 
> 									Pavel
> -- 
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

--
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/