Re: BTRFS Benchmarking

[Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 06:03:50PM +0200, Olivier Doucet wrote:
> hello everyone,
> 
> I made an overall benchmark of BTRFS against EXT4 and XFS. I'm quite
> unhappy with BTRFS results, so maybe tuning was not perfect.
> 
> http://www.slideshare.net/ezameku/btrfs-benchmark
> 
> All data is vectorial, so download the PDF and you can zoom ;)
> 
> If you have any feedback on how to improve BTRFS results (and others
> fs too !), I would be glad to update my data.
> 
> Test protocol
> Server : dual CPU Intel L5640 with HT enabled
> Operating system : CentOS 6.2 (64bits version) with custom tools/kernels
> Kernel : 3.3.0
> Btrfs progs: version 0.19
> Drive : Seagate 3TB drive (ST33000652SS) SAS attached via an LSI HBA.
> Drive was accessed through LVM ;
> 
> MKFS options
> BTRFS    : none
> XFS         : none
> EXT4       : none
> 
> Mount options
> BTRFS          : "noatime,nodiratime"
> BTRFS compress : "noatime,nodiratime,compress=lzo"
> EXT4           : "noatime,nodiratime"
> XFS            : "noatime,nodiratime"
> 
> Benchmark is done with Sysbench (fileio test).
> Each benchmark was done for 60 seconds, and generated one point on the
> graph each second (to see variations).
> Right scale is block size.
> 
> Data read / written is from /dev/urandom, so cannot be compressed much
> (that was expected behaviour).
> 
> All second pages has no legend, I'm sorry for that :
> - data is 95 percentile aggregate.
> - colours are the same.
> 
> 
> Overview of results
> 
> On sequential read, there is no variations between FS.
> On sequential write, BTRFS has lower values than EXT4/XFS. On random
> write also.
> 

Not what I've been seeing at all, but we've been working a lot in this area
recently.  Please retest with btrfs-next.  Thanks,

Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html