On Wed 24 May 2017 06:26:23 PM CEST, Anton Nefedov wrote: >>> I agree; as mentioned we have similar patches and they don't >>> conflict much. We noticed a performance regression on HDD though, >>> for the presumably optimized case (random 4k write over a large >>> backed image); so the patches were put on hold. >> >> Interesting, I think that scenario was noticeably faster in my >> tests. What cluster size(s) and image size(s) were you using? >> > 64k cluster, 2g image, write 32m in portions of 4k at random offsets
I just tried that and the optimized case performs better (as expected), almost twice as fast in fact: write: io=32892KB, bw=162944B/s, iops=39, runt=206705msec write: io=32892KB, bw=309256B/s, iops=75, runt=108911msec I'll try in a different machine. Berto
