Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:39:39PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest. > > > > Are you sure these numbers are correct? > > Note, that %cpu numbers for fuse filesystems are inherently skewed, > because the CPU usage of the filesystem process itself is not taken > into account. > > So the numbers are not all that good, but according to the zfs-fuse > author it hasn't been optimized yet, so they may improve. Also, something which is data i/o intensive is going to be the best case for a FUSE filesystem. If you try something which is much more metadata intensive (i.e., lots of file creates and deletes, chmods, etc.) like say with a Postmark benchmark, you would almost certainly get very different results. That's not to say that bonnie++ benchmarks aren't useful, but when doing comparisons between filesystems, it's a good idea to use a wide variety of benchmarks to avoid getting potentially misleading results. - Ted - 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: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Miklos Szeredi wrote: Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest. Are you sure these numbers are correct? Note, that %cpu numbers for fuse filesystems are inherently skewed, because the CPU usage of the filesystem process itself is not taken into account. So the numbers are not all that good, but according to the zfs-fuse author it hasn't been optimized yet, so they may improve. Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html This was performed on an E6300, 1 core was ZFS/FUSE (or quite a bit of it anyway) - 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: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 10:29 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote: > Overall JFS seems the fastest but reviewing the mailing list for JFS it > seems like there a lot of problems, especially when people who use JFS > 1 > year, their speed goes to 5 MiB/s over time and the defragfs tool has been > removed(?) from the source/Makefile and on Google it says not to use it > due to corruption. The defragfs tool was an unported holdover from OS/2, which is why it was removed. There never was a working Linux version. I have some ideas to improve jfs allocation to avoid fragmentation problems, but jfs isn't my full-time job anymore, so I can't promise anything. I'm not sure about the corruption claims. I'd like to hear some specifics on that. Anyway, for enterprise use, I couldn't recommend jfs, since there is no full-time maintainer. Thanks, Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center - 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: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5
> Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest. > > Are you sure these numbers are correct? Note, that %cpu numbers for fuse filesystems are inherently skewed, because the CPU usage of the filesystem process itself is not taken into account. So the numbers are not all that good, but according to the zfs-fuse author it hasn't been optimized yet, so they may improve. Miklos - 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: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5
Justin Piszcz wrote: > CONFIG: > > Software RAID 5 (400GB x 6): Default mkfs parameters for all filesystems. > Kernel was 2.6.21 or 2.6.22, did these awhile ago. > Hardware was SATA with PCI-e only, nothing on the PCI bus. > > ZFS was userspace+fuse of course. Wow! Userspace and still that efficient. > Reiser was V3. > EXT4 was created using the recommended options on its project page. > > RAW: > > ext2,7760M,56728,96.,180505,51,85484,17.,50946.7,80.,235541,21 >.,373.667,0,16:10:16/64,2354,27,0,0,8455.67,14.6667,2211.67,26. >,0,0,9724,22. > ext3,7760M,52702.7,94.,165005,60,82294.7,20.6667,52664,83.6667,258788, >33.,335.8,0,16:10:16/64,858.333,10.6667,10250.3,28.6667,4084,15,897 >,12.6667,4024.33,12.,2754,11. > ext4,7760M,53129.7,95,164515,59.,101678,31.6667,62194.3,98.6667,266716 >,22.,405.767,0,16:10:16/64,1963.67,23.6667,0,0,20859,73.6667,1731,2 >1.,9022,23.6667,16410,65.6667 > jfs,7760M,54606,92,191997,52,112764,33.6667,63585.3,99,274921,22.,383. >8,0,16:10:16/64,344,1,0,0,539.667,0,297.667,1,0,0,340,0 > reiserfs,7760M,51056.7,96,180607,67,106907,38.,61231.3,97.6667,275339, >29.,441.167,0,16:10:16/64,2516,60.6667,19174.3,60.6667,8194.33,54.3 >333,2011,42.6667,6963.67,19.6667,9168.33,68.6667 > xfs,7760M,52985.7,93,158342,45,79682,14,60547.3,98,239101,20.,359.667, >0,16:10:16/64,415,4,0,0,1774.67,10.6667,454,4.7,14526.3,40,1572,12. >6667 > zfs,7760M, Dissecting some of these numbers: speed %cpu > 25601,43., > 32198.7,4, > 13266.3, 2, > 44145.3,68.6667, > 129278,9, > 245.167,0, > 16:10:16/64, speed %cpu > 218.333,2, > 2698.33,11.6667, > 7434.67,14., > 244,2, > 2191.33,11.6667, > 5613.33,13. Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest. Are you sure these numbers are correct? Thanks! -- Al - 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: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5
Justin Piszcz wrote: CONFIG: Software RAID 5 (400GB x 6): Default mkfs parameters for all filesystems. Kernel was 2.6.21 or 2.6.22, did these awhile ago. Hardware was SATA with PCI-e only, nothing on the PCI bus. ZFS was userspace+fuse of course. Wow! Userspace and still that efficient. Reiser was V3. EXT4 was created using the recommended options on its project page. RAW: ext2,7760M,56728,96.,180505,51,85484,17.,50946.7,80.,235541,21 .,373.667,0,16:10:16/64,2354,27,0,0,8455.67,14.6667,2211.67,26. ,0,0,9724,22. ext3,7760M,52702.7,94.,165005,60,82294.7,20.6667,52664,83.6667,258788, 33.,335.8,0,16:10:16/64,858.333,10.6667,10250.3,28.6667,4084,15,897 ,12.6667,4024.33,12.,2754,11. ext4,7760M,53129.7,95,164515,59.,101678,31.6667,62194.3,98.6667,266716 ,22.,405.767,0,16:10:16/64,1963.67,23.6667,0,0,20859,73.6667,1731,2 1.,9022,23.6667,16410,65.6667 jfs,7760M,54606,92,191997,52,112764,33.6667,63585.3,99,274921,22.,383. 8,0,16:10:16/64,344,1,0,0,539.667,0,297.667,1,0,0,340,0 reiserfs,7760M,51056.7,96,180607,67,106907,38.,61231.3,97.6667,275339, 29.,441.167,0,16:10:16/64,2516,60.6667,19174.3,60.6667,8194.33,54.3 333,2011,42.6667,6963.67,19.6667,9168.33,68.6667 xfs,7760M,52985.7,93,158342,45,79682,14,60547.3,98,239101,20.,359.667, 0,16:10:16/64,415,4,0,0,1774.67,10.6667,454,4.7,14526.3,40,1572,12. 6667 zfs,7760M, Dissecting some of these numbers: speed %cpu 25601,43., 32198.7,4, 13266.3, 2, 44145.3,68.6667, 129278,9, 245.167,0, 16:10:16/64, speed %cpu 218.333,2, 2698.33,11.6667, 7434.67,14., 244,2, 2191.33,11.6667, 5613.33,13. Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest. Are you sure these numbers are correct? Thanks! -- Al - 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: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5
Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest. Are you sure these numbers are correct? Note, that %cpu numbers for fuse filesystems are inherently skewed, because the CPU usage of the filesystem process itself is not taken into account. So the numbers are not all that good, but according to the zfs-fuse author it hasn't been optimized yet, so they may improve. Miklos - 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: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 10:29 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote: Overall JFS seems the fastest but reviewing the mailing list for JFS it seems like there a lot of problems, especially when people who use JFS 1 year, their speed goes to 5 MiB/s over time and the defragfs tool has been removed(?) from the source/Makefile and on Google it says not to use it due to corruption. The defragfs tool was an unported holdover from OS/2, which is why it was removed. There never was a working Linux version. I have some ideas to improve jfs allocation to avoid fragmentation problems, but jfs isn't my full-time job anymore, so I can't promise anything. I'm not sure about the corruption claims. I'd like to hear some specifics on that. Anyway, for enterprise use, I couldn't recommend jfs, since there is no full-time maintainer. Thanks, Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center - 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: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Miklos Szeredi wrote: Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest. Are you sure these numbers are correct? Note, that %cpu numbers for fuse filesystems are inherently skewed, because the CPU usage of the filesystem process itself is not taken into account. So the numbers are not all that good, but according to the zfs-fuse author it hasn't been optimized yet, so they may improve. Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html This was performed on an E6300, 1 core was ZFS/FUSE (or quite a bit of it anyway) - 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: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:39:39PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest. Are you sure these numbers are correct? Note, that %cpu numbers for fuse filesystems are inherently skewed, because the CPU usage of the filesystem process itself is not taken into account. So the numbers are not all that good, but according to the zfs-fuse author it hasn't been optimized yet, so they may improve. Also, something which is data i/o intensive is going to be the best case for a FUSE filesystem. If you try something which is much more metadata intensive (i.e., lots of file creates and deletes, chmods, etc.) like say with a Postmark benchmark, you would almost certainly get very different results. That's not to say that bonnie++ benchmarks aren't useful, but when doing comparisons between filesystems, it's a good idea to use a wide variety of benchmarks to avoid getting potentially misleading results. - Ted - 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/
