Re: Btrfs v0.16 released

[Chris Mason]

On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 21:10 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 19:44 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > > I spent a bunch of time hammering on different ways to fix this without
> > > increasing nr_requests, and it was a mixture of needing better tuning in
> > > btrfs and needing to init mapping->writeback_index on inode allocation.
> > > 
> > > So, today's numbers for creating 30 kernel trees in sequence:
> > > 
> > > Btrfs defaults                  57.41 MB/s
> > > Btrfs dup no csum               74.59 MB/s 
> > > Btrfs no duplication            76.83 MB/s
> > > Btrfs no dup no csum no inline  76.85 MB/s
> > 
> > What sort of script are you using?  Basically something like this?
> > 
> > for i in `seq 1 30` do
> >     mkdir $i; cd $i
> >     tar xjf /usr/src/linux-2.6.28.tar.bz2
> >     cd ..
> > done
> 
> Similar.  I used compilebench -i 30 -r 0, which means create 30 initial
> kernel trees and then do nothing.  compilebench simulates compiles by
> writing to the FS files of the same size that you would get by creating
> kernel trees or compiling them.
> 
> The idea is to get all of the IO without needing to keep 2.6.28.tar.bz2
> in cache or the compiler using up CPU.
> 
> http://www.oracle.com/~mason/compilebench

Whoops the link above is wrong, try:

http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/compilebench

It is worth noting that the end throughput doesn't matter quite as much
as the writeback pattern.  Ext4 is pretty solid on this test, with very
consistent results.

-chris


--
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/