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 hardware raid 0 on a LSI 1068e controller. Best regards, Morten On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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: >> >> [root@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 seconds (70.82 MB/s) >> native patched native-0 109MB in 0.69 seconds (158.94 MB/s) >> native patched compiled native-0 691MB in 1.86 seconds (371.83 MB/s) >> create dir kernel-0 222MB in 2.28 seconds (97.53 MB/s) >> create dir kernel-1 222MB in 3.45 seconds (64.46 MB/s) > > You'll probably find the btrfs create and delete speeds improve if you > mount with -o max_inline=0. Please confirm which kernel you were > running? > > Also btrfs hammers on slab/slub very hard, so a kernel with slab/slub > debugging on will tend to be slower on btrfs than the other filesystems. > > [ btrfs results for the compile phase ] >> compile dir kernel-29 680MB in 2.93 seconds (232.30 MB/s) >> compile dir kernel-11 680MB in 3.24 seconds (210.07 MB/s) >> compile dir kernel-22 680MB in 3.12 seconds (218.15 MB/s) >> compile dir kernel-15 680MB in 3.25 seconds (209.43 MB/s) >> compile dir kernel-13 680MB in 3.23 seconds (210.72 MB/s) > >> >> Ext4: >> >> [root@fc13 compilebench-0.6]# ./compilebench -D /mnt/ext4 -i 30 --makej >> using working directory /mnt/ext4, 30 intial dirs 100 runs >> native unpatched native-0 222MB in 2.34 seconds (95.03 MB/s) >> native patched native-0 109MB in 0.60 seconds (182.78 MB/s) >> native patched compiled native-0 691MB in 2.00 seconds (345.80 MB/s) >> create dir kernel-0 222MB in 2.16 seconds (102.95 MB/s) >> create dir kernel-1 222MB in 2.37 seconds (93.83 MB/s) >> create dir kernel-2 222MB in 3.11 seconds (71.50 MB/s) >> create dir kernel-3 222MB in 3.71 seconds (59.94 MB/s) >> create dir kernel-4 222MB in 3.55 seconds (62.64 MB/s) >> create dir kernel-5 222MB in 3.61 seconds (61.60 MB/s) >> create dir kernel-6 222MB in 3.34 seconds (66.58 MB/s) >> create dir kernel-7 222MB in 3.72 seconds (59.78 MB/s) >> create dir kernel-8 222MB in 2.66 seconds (83.60 MB/s) > > Wow, much better than my drive. What kind of storage is this? > >> compile dir kernel-29 680MB in 4.10 seconds (166.01 MB/s) >> compile dir kernel-11 680MB in 4.35 seconds (156.47 MB/s) >> compile dir kernel-22 680MB in 4.42 seconds (153.99 MB/s) >> compile dir kernel-15 680MB in 4.59 seconds (148.29 MB/s) > > Much lower than btrfs. Strictly speaking this could be a layout > decision. Ext4 could be trying to place the new .o files close to the > rest of the files in that subdirectory. Btrfs tries harder to maximize > writeback speeds because COW causes fragmentation anyway. > > -chris > > -- > 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 > -- 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
