[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YP7EX7w035AWASlg@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:19:11 -0400
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Michael Larabel <Michael@...haellarabel.com>
Subject: Re: Folios give an 80% performance win
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 02:44:13PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> The phoronix test uses postgres with only one relevant setting adjusted
> (increasing the max connection count). That will end up using a buffer pool of
> 128MB, no huge pages, and importantly is configured to aim for not more than
> 1GB for postgres' journal, which will lead to constant checkpointing. The test
> also only runs for 15 seconds, which likely isn't even enough to "warm up"
> (the creation of the data set here will take longer than the run).
>
> Given that the dataset phoronix is using is about ~16GB of data (excluding
> WAL), and uses 256 concurrent clients running full tilt, using that limited
> postgres settings doesn't end up measuring something particularly interesting
> in my opinion.
Hi Andreas,
I tend to use the phoronix test suite for my performance runs when
testing ext4 changes simply because it's convenient. Can you suggest
a better set configuration settings that I should perhaps use that
might give more "real world" numbers that you would find more
significant?
Thanks,
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists