Re: [Jfs-discussion] Filesystem performance with Linux 2.4 vs. 2.6
Brought to you by:
blaschke-oss,
shaggyk
From: Dr.Peer-Joachim K. <pk...@bg...> - 2004-12-09 10:49:16
|
Hi, I have here a new server (compute server), which still is not active. I will add to type's of raid systems from EMC. A AX-100 (S-ATA with 4 Disks) and from our main Raid (Clarrion FC4700) some disk space. Mainly I'd like to check an effect reported by a college from another institute, how noticed a dramatic performance decrease after 1-2 weeks using a file system (he tested ext3 and xfs). If one is sending me a script or some hints how to setup the system to extract comparable results! The machine is a Sun v40 with 4 Opteron and 8 GB Ram and a qlogic FC-card. But we only have a 1GB-SAN ;) . otherwise I'll try to copy the settings from thew linux magazine. Bye, Peer Sonny Rao schrieb: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 10:39:29PM +0100, Michael M?ller wrote: > >>On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 05:53:33PM -0500, Sonny Rao <so...@bu...> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 11:40:21AM +0100, Michael M?ller wrote: >>> >>>>Hi all, >>>> >>>>I read an article in the German 'Linux Magazin' 11/04 about a >>>>comparision of the different FS. They tested Ext2, Ext3, JFS, XFS, >>>>ReiserFS, Reiser4 and Veritas. Detailed results can be found on >>>>http://www.linux-magazin.de/Service/Listings/2004/11/fs_bench. >> >>The link only contains test results; no German texts. > > > True, there were a few articles for November here: > http://www.linux-magazin.de/Artikel/ausgabe/2004/11 > > >>>My guess is that they didn't set the readahead high enough for >>>whatever type of device they were testing on 2.6 (It looks like a Raid >>>array, since on 2.4 it gets about 100MB/sec, which I don't think very >>>many single disks can do). The readahead implementation on 2.6 is >>>certainly different from the one on 2.4. IO performance on 2.6 is >>>much, much better across the board. >>> >>>My German isn't great, so I'm not going to try and read the article, >>>but I'd also like to know what kind of array they are using for this >>>test. Before we can make any conclusions, we should know what the >>>hardware is capable of doing. >> >>The hardware: >> >>Pentium 4, 2.8GHz, 512MB, 12 SATA-HDs in a RAID, overall capacity 2TB, >>test partition 200GB >> >>For the 2.4 tests they used SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8, kernel >>2.4.21-138-smp, for 2.6 SuSE Linux 9.1, 2.6.7-mm4 with patches for >>Reiser 4. > > > Ok, how did they set the readahead size in the tests, just the defaults ? > For a 12 disk array, the default of 128k readahead on 2.6 isn't going > to cut it. > > Was it a hardware or software RAID? RAID-0, RAID-5, RAID-10? > If it was hardware, what type of adapter, was it a PCI-X adapter or > just a regular PCI? > > Given all of that, what is the expected/advertised hardware throughput? > Something like aio-stress would be a good test since a filesystem > isn't required, and we can isolate problems in the block layer/drivers. > > One needs most of these details to make any kind of reasonable > conclusion from the results given. > > Sonny > > _______________________________________________ > Jfs-discussion mailing list > Jfs...@ww... > http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion > > -- Mit freundlichem Gruss Peer-Joachim Koch _________________________________________________________ Max-Planck-Institut fuer Biogeochemie Dr. Peer-Joachim Koch Hans-Knöll Str.10 Telefon: ++49 3641 57-6705 D-07745 Jena Telefax: ++49 3641 57-7705 |