Yan Zheng wrote:
2009/7/20 Steven Pratt <slpratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Finally got around to going through latest data. Seems like we lost all the
random write performance gains. Creates are better, but total regression on
the random workload. Sequential reads seem to have dropped as well.
Results are uploading now.
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/history/History.html
These are for RAID only as single disk system still having issues completing
btrfs runs. Also, missing oprofile duw to oprofile causing an NMI and
killing the system.
Chris, this was built on 7/6, but I see no new changes sine 7/2/.
Steve
The output of ffsb in the latest 128 threads random odirect write benchmark was
....
checking existing fs: /mnt/ffsb1
fs setup took 6 secs
Syncing()...2 sec
....
The corresponding output on 30 June was
....
creating new fileset /mnt/ffsb1
fs setup took 847 secs
Syncing()...1 sec
....
It seems the filesystem used in the latest benchmark wasn't freshly created.
Yes, the older (better) random write performance did indeed recreate the
files before the test. Thanks for catching this. I had 2 job files, 1
for just btrfs and 1 for all file systems and the reuse flag is
different between them. Please ignore this regression. I will re-run
without the reuse flag and expect things to be similar. This does
indicate that btrfs degrades quite rapidly under random write, but that
is a separate topic.
Steve
Yan, Zheng
--
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
