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]

Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:07:25 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Sooman Jeong <77smart@...yang.ac.kr>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@...eyko.com>
Subject: Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

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).

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/