On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:57:43 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
Since the files are empty, and we aren't doing enough files to trigger
IO, it is really benchmarking the cost of the btree insertions/removals
in comparison with ext4. I do expect this to be higher because btrfs is
indexing the directories
Hi,
We did some performance test and found the create/delete files performance
of btrfs is very poor.
The test is that we create 5 files and measure the file-create time
first, and then delete these 5 files and measure the file-delete time.
(The attached file is the reproduce program)
2010/8/18 Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com:
Hi,
We did some performance test and found the create/delete files performance
of btrfs is very poor.
The test is that we create 5 files and measure the file-create time
first, and then delete these 5 files and measure the file-delete time.
Have you tried umounting and mounting before the second test to
eliminate any caching?
Which kernel you use?
2010/8/18 Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com:
Hi,
We did some performance test and found the create/delete files performance
of btrfs is very poor.
The test is that we create 5 files
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:49:16 +0100, Leonidas Spyropoulos wrote:
Have you tried umounting and mounting before the second test to
eliminate any caching?
Yes, I have done it.
The result is similar to the one I have reported.
(Unit: second)
Create file performance
BtrFS
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:12:46PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
Hi,
We did some performance test and found the create/delete files performance
of btrfs is very poor.
The test is that we create 5 files and measure the file-create time
first, and then delete these 5 files and measure the
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:49:05PM +0200, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
Hi,
i can confirm this issue with poor create and delete performance.
For example with unpacking and deleting the linux kernel:
Btrfs:
[r...@fc13 btrfs]# time tar xfj linux-2.6.36-rc1.tar.bz2
real0m18.794s
Hi Chris,
Your compilebench results are very interesting.
Here are my results with exactly the same benchmark:
Btrfs:
[r...@fc13 compilebench-0.6]# ./compilebench -D /mnt/btrfs -i 30 --makej
using working directory /mnt/btrfs, 30 intial dirs 100 runs
native unpatched native-0 222MB in 3.14
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
Hi Chris,
Your compilebench results are very interesting.
Here are my results with exactly the same benchmark:
Btrfs:
[r...@fc13 compilebench-0.6]# ./compilebench -D /mnt/btrfs -i 30 --makej
using working directory
Hi Chris,
I'm using a standard fedora 13 kernel.
Linux fc13.corp.imt-systems.com 2.6.33.6-147.2.4.fc13.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Jul 23
17:14:44 UTC 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
If you like, I can rerun these benchmarks with 2.6.36-rc1.
My Storage:
2x Western Digital WD5000AAKS SATA Disks with
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:09:41 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
We did some performance test and found the create/delete files performance
of btrfs is very poor.
The test is that we create 5 files and measure the file-create time
first, and then delete these 5 files and measure the file-delete
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 08:35:18AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:09:41 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
We did some performance test and found the create/delete files performance
of btrfs is very poor.
The test is that we create 5 files and measure the file-create time
first,
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:57:43 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
Since the files are empty, and we aren't doing enough files to trigger
IO, it is really benchmarking the cost of the btree insertions/removals
in comparison with ext4. I do expect this to be higher because btrfs is
indexing the directories
13 matches
Mail list logo
