"Jeffrey W. Baker" wrote:
>
> > ...
> > ext2: Throughput 2.71849 MB/sec (NB=3.39812 MB/sec 27.1849 MBit/sec)
> > ext3: Throughput 12.3623 MB/sec (NB=15.4529 MB/sec 123.623 MBit/sec)
> >
> > ext3 patches are at http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/ext3/
> >
> > The difference will be less dramatic with large, individual writes.
>
> This is a totally transient effect, right? The journal acts as a faster
> buffer, but if programs are writing a lot of data to the disk for a very
> long time, the throughput will eventually be throttled by writing the
> journal back into the filesystem.
It varies a lot with workload. With large writes such as
'iozone -s 300m -a -i 0' it seems about the same throughput
as ext2. It would take some time to characterise fully.
> For programs that write in bursts, it looks like a huge win!
yes - lots of short writes (eg: mailspools) will benefit considerably.
The benefits come from the additional merging and sorting which
can be performed on the writeback data.
I suspect some of the dbench benefit comes from the fact that
the files are unlinked at the end of the test - if the data hasn't
been written back at that time the buffers are hunted down and
zapped - they *never* get written.
If anyone wants to test sync throughput, please be sure to use
0.9.3-pre - it fixes some rather sucky behaviour with large journals.
-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 21:00:19 EST