Re: More Large blocksize benchmarks
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 12:36 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:22:31PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > I'm stealing the cc list and reviving and old thread because I've > > finally got some numbers to go along with the Btrfs variable blocksize > > feature. The basic idea is to create a read/write interface to > > map a range of bytes on the address space, and use it in Btrfs for all > > metadata operations (file operations have always been extent based). > > > > So, instead of casting buffer_head->b_data to some structure, I read and > > write at offsets in a struct extent_buffer. The extent buffer is very > > small and backed by an address space, and I get large block sizes the > > same way file_write gets to write to 16k at a time, by finding the > > appropriate page in the addess space. This is an over simplification > > since I try to cache these mapping decisions to avoid using too much > > CPU, but hopefully you get the idea. > > > > The advantage to this approach is the changes are all inside Btrfs. No > > extra kernel patches were required. > > > > Dave reported that XFS saw much higher write throughput with large > > blocksizes, but so far I'm seeing the most benefits during reads. > > Apples to oranges, Chris ;) > Grin, if the two were the same, there'd be no reason to write a new one. I didn't expect faster writes on btrfs, at least not for workloads that did not require reads. The basic idea is to show there are a variety of ways the larger blocks can improve (and hurt) performance. Also, vmap isn't the only implementation path. Its true the Btrfs changes for this were huge, but a big chunk of the changes were for different leaf/node blocksizes, something that may never get used in practice. -chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: More Large blocksize benchmarks
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:22:31PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm stealing the cc list and reviving and old thread because I've > finally got some numbers to go along with the Btrfs variable blocksize > feature. The basic idea is to create a read/write interface to > map a range of bytes on the address space, and use it in Btrfs for all > metadata operations (file operations have always been extent based). > > So, instead of casting buffer_head->b_data to some structure, I read and > write at offsets in a struct extent_buffer. The extent buffer is very > small and backed by an address space, and I get large block sizes the > same way file_write gets to write to 16k at a time, by finding the > appropriate page in the addess space. This is an over simplification > since I try to cache these mapping decisions to avoid using too much > CPU, but hopefully you get the idea. > > The advantage to this approach is the changes are all inside Btrfs. No > extra kernel patches were required. > > Dave reported that XFS saw much higher write throughput with large > blocksizes, but so far I'm seeing the most benefits during reads. Apples to oranges, Chris ;) btrfs linearises writes due to it's COW behaviour and this is trades off read speed. i.e. we take more seeks to read data so we can keep the write speed high. By using large blocks, you're reducing the number of seeks needed to find anything, and hence the read speed will increase. Write speed will be pretty much unchanged because btrfs does linear writes no matter the block size. XFS doesn't linearise writes and optimises it's layout for a large number of disks and a low number of seeks on reads - the opposite of btrfs. Hence large block sizes reduce the number of writes XFS needs to write a given set of data+metadata and hence write speed increases much more than the read speed (until you get to large tree traversals). The basic conclusion is that different filesystems will benefit in different ways with large block sizes Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: More Large blocksize benchmarks
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Chris Mason wrote: > Dave reported that XFS saw much higher write throughput with large > blocksizes, but so far I'm seeing the most benefits during reads. Dave's tests were done with an early large blocksize patchset that had issues with readahead. More recent versions have the fixes by Fengguang that address the issue. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
More Large blocksize benchmarks
Hello everyone, I'm stealing the cc list and reviving and old thread because I've finally got some numbers to go along with the Btrfs variable blocksize feature. The basic idea is to create a read/write interface to map a range of bytes on the address space, and use it in Btrfs for all metadata operations (file operations have always been extent based). So, instead of casting buffer_head->b_data to some structure, I read and write at offsets in a struct extent_buffer. The extent buffer is very small and backed by an address space, and I get large block sizes the same way file_write gets to write to 16k at a time, by finding the appropriate page in the addess space. This is an over simplification since I try to cache these mapping decisions to avoid using too much CPU, but hopefully you get the idea. The advantage to this approach is the changes are all inside Btrfs. No extra kernel patches were required. Dave reported that XFS saw much higher write throughput with large blocksizes, but so far I'm seeing the most benefits during reads. The next step is a bunch more benchmarks. I've done the first round and posted it here: http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/blocksizes/ The Btrfs code makes it relatively easy to experiment, and so this may be a good step toward figuring out if some automagic solution is worth it in general. I can even use different sizes for nodes and leaves, although I haven't done much testing at all there yet. -chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/