On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 08:56:52AM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote: > Chris Mason wrote: > >On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 04:10:41PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote: > >>>Hi Steve, > >>> > >>>I think I'm going to start tuning something other than the > >>>random-writes, there is definitely low hanging fruit in the large file > >>>creates workload ;) Thanks again for posting all of these. > >>Sure, no problem. > >> > >>>The history graph has 2.6.31-rc btrfs against 2.6.29-rc ext4. Have you > >>>done more recent runs on ext4? > >>> > >>Yes, thanks for pointing that out, had so many issues I forgot to > >>update the graphs for other file systems. Just pushed new graphs > >>with data for 2.6.30-rc7 for all the other file systems. This was > >>from your "newformat" branch from June 6th. > > > >I've been tuning the 128 thread large file streaming writes, and found > >some easy optimizations. While I'm fixing up these patches, could you > >please do a streaming O_DIRECT write test run for me? I think buffered > >writeback in general has some problems right now on high end arrays. > > > >On my box 2.6.31-rc5 streaming buffered write with xfs only got at > >200MB/s (with the 128 thread ffsb workload). Buffered btrfs goes at > >175MB/s. > > > >O_DIRECT btrfs runs at 390MB/s, while XFS varies a bit between 330MB/s > >and 250MB/s. > > > >I'm using a 1MB write blocksize. > On my todo list, but am swamped this week trying to get ready for > vacation. Will try to get to it as soon as I can.
Ok, I've pushed out a very raw version of my buffered write fixes to a new branch named performance on btrfs-unstable. Please try this with the streaming large file create workload. I'm also curious to see if it improves on your box when you mount with mount -o thread_pool=128 -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
