Message-ID: <51d9d1b3-2b2a-9b58-2f7f-f3a56c9e04ac@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2023 12:28:15 +0800
From:   Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, gscrivan@...hat.com,
        brauner@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        david@...morbit.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Composefs: an opportunistically sharing verified
 image filesystem

Hi all,

There are some updated performance statistics with different
combinations on my test environment if you are interested.


On 1/27/23 6:24 PM, Gao Xiang wrote:
> ...
> 
> I've made a version and did some test, it can be fetched from:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/xiang/erofs-utils.git -b
> experimental
> 

Setup
======
CPU: x86_64 Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8269CY CPU @ 2.50GHz
Disk: 6800 IOPS upper limit
OS: Linux v6.2 (with composefs v3 patchset)

I build erofs/squashfs images following the scripts attached on [1],
with each file in the rootfs tagged with "metacopy" and "redirect" xattr.

The source rootfs is from the docker image of tensorflow [2].

The erofs images are built with mkfs.erofs with support for sparse file
added [3].

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/5fb32a1297821040edd8c19ce796fc0540101653.camel@redhat.com/
[2]
https://hub.docker.com/layers/tensorflow/tensorflow/2.10.0/images/sha256-7f9f23ce2473eb52d17fe1b465c79c3a3604047343e23acc036296f512071bc9?context=explore
[3]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/xiang/erofs-utils.git/commit/?h=experimental&id=7c49e8b195ad90f6ca9dfccce9f6e3e39a8676f6



Image size
===========
6.4M large.composefs
5.7M large.composefs.w/o.digest (w/o --compute-digest)
6.2M large.erofs
5.2M large.erofs.T0 (with -T0, i.e. w/o nanosecond timestamp)
1.7M large.squashfs
5.8M large.squashfs.uncompressed (with -noI -noD -noF -noX)

(large.erofs.T0 is built without nanosecond timestamp, so that we get
smaller disk inode size (same with squashfs).)


Runtime Perf
=============

The "uncached" column is tested with:
hyperfine -p "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" "ls -lR $MNTPOINT"


While the "cached" column is tested with:
hyperfine -w 1 "ls -lR $MNTPOINT"


erofs and squashfs are mounted with loopback device.


				  | uncached(ms)| cached(ms)
----------------------------------|-------------|-----------
composefs (with digest)		  | 326		| 135
erofs (w/o -T0)			  | 264		| 172
erofs (w/o -T0) + overlayfs	  | 651		| 238
squashfs (compressed)		  | 538		| 211
squashfs (compressed) + overlayfs | 968		| 302
squashfs (uncompressed)		  | 406		| 172
squashfs (uncompressed)+overlayfs | 833		| 264





Following on are the detailed test statistics:

composefs(with digest) - uncached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/cps
  Time (mean ± σ):     326.0 ms ±   6.1 ms    [User: 64.1 ms, System:
126.0 ms]
  Range (min … max):   316.3 ms … 334.5 ms    10 runs

composefs(with digest) - cached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/cps
  Time (mean ± σ):     135.5 ms ±   4.1 ms    [User: 59.9 ms, System:
74.8 ms]
  Range (min … max):   129.5 ms … 144.8 ms    21 runs



loopback erofs(w/o -T0) - uncached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/bootstrap
  Time (mean ± σ):     264.1 ms ±   2.1 ms    [User: 66.7 ms, System:
166.2 ms]
  Range (min … max):   261.0 ms … 267.5 ms    10 runs

loopback erofs(w/o -T0) - cached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/bootstrap
  Time (mean ± σ):     172.3 ms ±   3.9 ms    [User: 59.3 ms, System:
112.2 ms]
  Range (min … max):   166.5 ms … 180.8 ms    17 runs


overlayfs + loopback erofs(w/o -T0) - uncached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/ovl/mntdir
  Time (mean ± σ):     651.8 ms ±   8.8 ms    [User: 74.2 ms, System:
391.1 ms]
  Range (min … max):   632.6 ms … 665.8 ms    10 runs

overlayfs + loopback erofs(w/o -T0) - cached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/ovl/mntdir
  Time (mean ± σ):     238.1 ms ±   7.7 ms    [User: 63.4 ms, System:
173.4 ms]
  Range (min … max):   226.7 ms … 251.2 ms    12 runs



loopback squashfs (compressed) - uncached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/squashfs-compressed/bootstrap
  Time (mean ± σ):     538.4 ms ±   2.4 ms    [User: 67.8 ms, System:
410.3 ms]
  Range (min … max):   535.6 ms … 543.6 ms    10 runs

loopback squashfs (compressed) - cached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/squashfs-compressed/bootstrap
  Time (mean ± σ):     211.3 ms ±   2.9 ms    [User: 61.2 ms, System:
141.3 ms]
  Range (min … max):   206.5 ms … 216.1 ms    13 runs


overlayfs + loopback squashfs (compressed) - uncached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/squashfs-compressed/mntdir
  Time (mean ± σ):     968.0 ms ±   7.1 ms    [User: 78.4 ms, System:
675.7 ms]
  Range (min … max):   956.4 ms … 977.2 ms    10 runs

overlayfs + loopback squashfs (compressed) - cached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/squashfs-compressed/mntdir
  Time (mean ± σ):     302.6 ms ±   6.7 ms    [User: 67.3 ms, System:
225.6 ms]
  Range (min … max):   292.4 ms … 312.3 ms    10 runs



loopback squashfs (uncompressed) - uncached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/squashfs-uncompressed/bootstrap
  Time (mean ± σ):     406.6 ms ±   3.9 ms    [User: 69.2 ms, System:
273.3 ms]
  Range (min … max):   400.3 ms … 414.2 ms    10 runs

loopback squashfs (uncompressed) - cached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/squashfs-uncompressed/bootstrap
  Time (mean ± σ):     172.8 ms ±   3.2 ms    [User: 61.9 ms, System:
101.6 ms]
  Range (min … max):   168.6 ms … 178.9 ms    16 runs


overlayfs + loopback squashfs (uncompressed) - uncached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/squashfs-uncompressed/mntdir
  Time (mean ± σ):     833.4 ms ±   8.0 ms    [User: 74.1 ms, System:
539.7 ms]
  Range (min … max):   820.7 ms … 844.3 ms    10 runs

overlayfs + loopback squashfs (uncompressed) - cached
Benchmark 1: ls -lR /mnt/squashfs-uncompressed/mntdir
  Time (mean ± σ):     264.4 ms ±   7.2 ms    [User: 68.2 ms, System:
186.2 ms]
  Range (min … max):   256.5 ms … 277.1 ms    10 runs



-- 
Thanks,
Jingbo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists