Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Linux 3.12 Kernel To Bring Faster File-Systems

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,119

    Default Linux 3.12 Kernel To Bring Faster File-Systems

    Phoronix: Linux 3.12 Kernel To Bring Faster File-Systems

    With the Linux 3.12 kernel due for release in several weeks time but all major changes behind us now, here are some file-system tests from this forthcoming kernel update. Tested Linux file-systems for this Phoronix article include EXT4, Btrfs, XFS, and F2FS. From these results, there are multiple instances of these file-systems running measurably faster than Linux 3.11.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19164

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7

    Default

    I loved if Phoronix put a evolution chart of the filesystem in all kernel 3.xx version.

    tks
    Joao

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmartins View Post
    I loved if Phoronix put a evolution chart of the filesystem in all kernel 3.xx version.

    tks
    Joao
    That's rather time intensive with very little ROI unless there's tons of interest/requests.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    80

    Default Compression comparison please.

    I've been wanting a benchmark on transparent compression, but I just realized that as awesome as it seems, I'm not getting much out of it. I only get 1.2 compressratio for a lz4 compressed ZFS volume containing 186GiB of games, the problem is that most files are pre-compressed. Another one of those "if you need it, you'll know it" features.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Once again phoronix has made the mistake of running file system benchmarks (of which many just write unrealistic streams of zeros) on a Sandforce SSD with compression. I'm not sure what you are measuring when you do that, but it is not realistic performance. Unless you modify all of your benchmarks to use real data (instead of streams of zeros), you should never use a Sandforce SSD to run the storage benchmarks.

    Also, as has been mentioned before, the first benchmark, the fio Intel IOMeter fileserver access pattern, really needs to be compared with a 4K-aligned version of the same test, since non-4K-aligned data is rare and not representative of most workloads. Just add "ba=4k" to the fio test script for that benchmark and run it again. You could always report both results, or you could just migrate to the ba=4k version, since that is probably the most representative.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael, from the article
    We'll continue exploring the Linux 3.12 kernel performance and trying out these file-system tests on traditional hard drives and other environments to see if these performance improvements persist.
    Maybe I'm one of the few people still using HDDs, but I would like to see if there any gains for these "ancient" drives ?
    Waiting for your next benchmark Michael

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chinoto View Post
    I've been wanting a benchmark on transparent compression, but I just realized that as awesome as it seems, I'm not getting much out of it. I only get 1.2 compressratio for a lz4 compressed ZFS volume containing 186GiB of games, the problem is that most files are pre-compressed. Another one of those "if you need it, you'll know it" features.
    I'm assuming youre referring to Btrfs Btrfs won't compress something it already knows is compressed, it just skips over it. But if you still want it to try, there is a mount option for 'forced compression.' You might have better luck with that.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30

    Default Seconded, please test spinning rust drives as well

    Quote Originally Posted by dietrdan View Post
    Maybe I'm one of the few people still using HDDs, but I would like to see if there any gains for these "ancient" drives ?
    Waiting for your next benchmark Michael
    What is more, it would be interesting to see which filesystems perform well on SSDs, and which ones perform well on old spinning HDDs. Different filesystems- different optimization topics. Also, transparent compression in SSD controller will skew test results unless you are writing random data.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by jwilliams View Post
    Once again phoronix has made the mistake of running file system benchmarks (of which many just write unrealistic streams of zeros) on a Sandforce SSD with compression. I'm not sure what you are measuring when you do that, but it is not realistic performance. Unless you modify all of your benchmarks to use real data (instead of streams of zeros), you should never use a Sandforce SSD to run the storage benchmarks.

    Also, as has been mentioned before, the first benchmark, the fio Intel IOMeter fileserver access pattern, really needs to be compared with a 4K-aligned version of the same test, since non-4K-aligned data is rare and not representative of most workloads. Just add "ba=4k" to the fio test script for that benchmark and run it again. You could always report both results, or you could just migrate to the ba=4k version, since that is probably the most representative.
    I would rather say do not perform benchmark tests alone to judge your SSDs. My analysis are justifiable by real tests on all kinds of SSDs including sandforce ones. Sandforce ones perform quite good in comparision to any other SSDs

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •