[BENCHMARK] EXT3 vs EXT2 results with rmap14a and testing with contest 0.34

From: Shawn Starr (spstarr@sh0n.net)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 23:16:26 EST

Sorry about the confusing email before. This should make more sense =)

These results compare EXT3 against EXT2 with rmap using the contest tool
you can get it at: http://contest.kolivas.net

These tests are from a Athlon MP 2000+ w/ 512MB RAM


Kernel Time CPU
2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 259.47 99%
2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 267.66 97%


Kernel Time CPU
2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 318.91 80%
2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 324.44 79%


Kernel Time CPU
2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 306.82 87%
2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 461.74 57%

io full mem:

Kernel Time CPU
2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 325.39 82%
2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 411.47 64%

full logs of the tests are:

noload Time: 259.47 CPU: 99% Major Faults: 770937 Minor Faults: 1173705
process_load Time: 318.91 CPU: 80% Major Faults: 742261 Minor Faults:
io_halfmem Time: 306.82 CPU: 87% Major Faults: 742000 Minor Faults: 1169497
Was writing number 33 of a 257Mb sized io_load file after 307 seconds
io_fullmem Time: 325.39 CPU: 82% Major Faults: 742000 Minor Faults: 1169494
Was writing number 16 of a 514Mb sized io_load file after 337 seconds
mem_load Time: 340.32 CPU: 79% Major Faults: 743307 Minor Faults: 1170011


noload Time: 267.66 CPU: 97% Major Faults: 771111 Minor Faults: 1173722
process_load Time: 324.44 CPU: 79% Major Faults: 742261 Minor Faults:
io_halfmem Time: 461.74 CPU: 57% Major Faults: 742000 Minor Faults: 1169496
Was writing number 34 of a 257Mb sized io_load file after 465 seconds
io_fullmem Time: 411.47 CPU: 64% Major Faults: 742000 Minor Faults: 1169494
Was writing number 15 of a 514Mb sized io_load file after 425 seconds
mem_load Time: 333.99 CPU: 81% Major Faults: 743320 Minor Faults: 1170021


As you can see, there's something DEFINATELY wrong here. EXT3 is much slower
then EXT2. I converted the EXT3 disk back to EXT2 to do the second test.

Also, I specified no mount options for EXT3 (which means it uses ordered
mode). The journal was created with tune2fs -j /dev/hda#

>From #Kernelnewbies (snip)
<ShawnCONSOLE> riel uses EXT3
<riel> my cpu is slower
<ShawnCONSOLE> but you have fast disks?
<riel> so it doesn't fall idle as quickly as yours, when waiting on the disk
<riel> not very fast ;)
<riel> old 8 GB IDE disk
<ShawnCONSOLE> so having a fast disk and a fast CPU causes the cpu to wait
longer cause the disk finishes its tasks much faster then the cpu expects?
<ShawnCONSOLE> mem load final test = 78%
<ShawnCONSOLE> so final numbers:
<ShawnCONSOLE> 99, 80%, 87%, 83%, 75%
<riel> yes, a very fast CPU falls idle more quickly
<riel> but it's very curious that ext3 is that much worse than ext2
<ShawnCONSOLE> thats much better.
<riel> definately worth pointing out to the ext3 maintainers.
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 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:25 EST