Re: ext3 multiple thread streaming write performance with 2.6.9

[Shantanu Goel]

Thanks for the pointer Arjan.  That worked out well.
Here are the numbers I got for 2.6.9 with reservation
patches applied from 2.6.9-mm1.

  ext3:data=ordered,reservation: 1: 47 48 48 (47)
  ext3:data=ordered,reservation: 2: 47 44 45 (46)
  ext3:data=ordered,reservation: 4: 45 43 45 (44)
ext3:data=writeback,reservation: 1: 47 49 48 (48)
ext3:data=writeback,reservation: 2: 48 46 44 (46)
ext3:data=writeback,reservation: 4: 46 45 45 (45)
                           ext2: 1: 53 55 54 (54)
                           ext2: 2: 42 52 51 (48)
                           ext2: 4: 21 26 25 (24)
                            xfs: 1: 53 53 53 (53)
                            xfs: 2: 48 53 51 (51)
                            xfs: 4: 43 47 46 (45)

--- Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 21:04 -0700, Shantanu Goel
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am seeing extremely variable and poor
> performance
> > with ext3 in the presence of multiple streaming
> > writers.  Below are the results of some tests I
> have
> > conducted with iozone.  XFS appears to be most
> > consistent performer for this workload, followed
> by
> > ext2 and finally ext3.  Has this been observed
> > elsewhere?  If so, is it possible to tune ext3 to
> > perform better on this workload?
> 
> yes you should use the reservations patch from the
> -mm tree;
> see http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/reservations.png
> for a graph of the difference 
> 
> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/