Ext4 vs XFS — различия между версиями

Материал из YourcmcWiki
Перейти к: навигация, поиск
м (→‎sysbench random read/write 16K in 8M files)
м (→‎filebench fileserver, dirty_ratio=20%)
Строка 182: Строка 182:
  
 
* HDD: WD VelociRaptor WD6000HLHX, 10000rpm
 
* HDD: WD VelociRaptor WD6000HLHX, 10000rpm
−
* Same test but ran with default 20% dirty_ratio setting. It's clearly seen that the system was using page cache extensively (ext4 was permanently gaining an unreal result in the single-thread test...)
+
* Same test but ran with default 20% dirty_ratio setting. It's clearly seen that the system was using page cache extensively - ext4 was permanently gaining an unreal result in the single-thread test...
  
 
<plot>
 
<plot>
Строка 215: Строка 215:
 
50.0  2632
 
50.0  2632
 
64.0  2778
 
64.0  2778
 +
ENDDATASET
 +
</plot>
 +
 +
<plot>
 +
set xrange [1:64]
 +
set logscale x
 +
set xtics (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 50, 64)
 +
set yrange [0:400]
 +
set xlabel 'threads'
 +
set ylabel 'MB/s (more is better)'
 +
set xzeroaxis
 +
set grid ytics
 +
set style fill solid 1.0 noborder
 +
set boxwidth 0.7 relative
 +
plot 'xfs.dat' using 1:2 title 'XFS' with linespoints, 'ext4.dat' using 1:2 title 'ext4' with linespoints
 +
DATASET xfs
 +
1.0  182
 +
2.0  88.7
 +
4.0  78.5
 +
8.0  78.3
 +
16.0  83.8
 +
32.0  85.6
 +
50.0  62.0
 +
64.0  39.2
 +
ENDDATASET
 +
DATASET ext4
 +
1.0  382.9
 +
2.0  96.8
 +
4.0  97.5
 +
8.0  94.9
 +
16.0  83.8
 +
32.0  73.3
 +
50.0  61.5
 +
64.0  64.2
 
ENDDATASET
 
ENDDATASET
 
</plot>
 
</plot>

Версия 19:13, 19 декабря 2013

Copy kernel source (from SSD with warm cache)

HDD: WD Scorpio Black 2.5" 750GB 7200rpm

  • xfs 1 thread: 12.348s
  • xfs 4 threads: 65.883s
  • ext4 1 thread: 7.662s
  • ext4 4 threads: 33.876s

FS-Mark 3.3, creating 1M files

  • HDD: WD Scorpio Black 2.5" 750GB 7200rpm
  • fs_mark is a write-only test and it does fsync(), so there should be no skew caused by page cache

sysbench random read/write 16K in 8M files

  • HDD: WD Scorpio Black 2.5" 750GB 7200rpm
  • sysbench was ran with O_DIRECT, so the page cache should also have no impact.
  • It’s not a filesystem benchmark at all! It tests disk performance because it holds ALL prepared files open during the test. It only shows us that XFS isn’t slowing down the direct access to the underlying device (which is also good, of course)…
  • Probably because of the above note, the filesystems don’t differ, and the results are totally same for 1x 1GB file and 128x 8MB files… and very similar for 3072x 16KB files (next test below).

sysbench random read/write 16K in 16K files

HDD: WD Scorpio Black 2.5" 750GB 7200rpm

filebench fileserver, dirty_ratio=1%

  • HDD: WD VelociRaptor WD6000HLHX, 10000rpm
  • fileserver test is read whole file + append + write whole file test ran on 10000 files in X threads
  • filebench fails to run fileserver test with O_DIRECT, so I tried to "disable" page cache using dirty_ratio=1% and ran tests like this:
echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio
echo 0 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_bytes
echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space
for i in 1 2 4 8 16 32 50 64; do
    echo
    echo "== $i threads =="
    echo
    echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
    sync
    filebench <<EOF
load fileserver
set \$dir=/media/sdd
set \$nthreads=$i
run 30
EOF
done
echo 20 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio

filebench fileserver, dirty_ratio=20%

  • HDD: WD VelociRaptor WD6000HLHX, 10000rpm
  • Same test but ran with default 20% dirty_ratio setting. It's clearly seen that the system was using page cache extensively - ext4 was permanently gaining an unreal result in the single-thread test...

Источник — «http://yourcmc.ru/wiki/index.php?title=Ext4_vs_XFS&oldid=8945»