Re: e2fs performance as function of block size

• Next message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: Patch(?): pci_device_id tables for linux-2.4.0-test11/drivers/block"
• Previous message: Miles Lane: "Re: Alan Cox's e-mail address is hosed?"
• In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: e2fs performance as function of block size"
• Next in thread: Brian Pomerantz: "Re: e2fs performance as function of block size"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Alan Cox wrote:
> I see higher performance with 4K block sizes. I should see higher
> latency too but have never been able to measure it. Maybe it depends
> on the file system.
> It certainly depends on the nature of requests

If the files get somewhat bigger (eg. > 1G) having a bigger block
size also greatly reduces the ext2 overhead. Especially fsync()
used to be really bad on big file but choosing a bigger block
size changed a lot.

If the database used by the original poster is based on
something like c-isam then (AFAIR) it is in fact using
1k blocks which may explain the better results of 1k block
size. With a 100 MB file size fs management overhead should
not be that visible.

Michael

-- 
Michael Marxmeier           Marxmeier Software AG
E-Mail: mike@marxmeier.com  Besenbruchstrasse 9
Phone : +49 202 2431440     42285 Wuppertal, Germany
Fax   : +49 202 2431420     http://www.marxmeier.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: Patch(?): pci_device_id tables for linux-2.4.0-test11/drivers/block"
• Previous message: Miles Lane: "Re: Alan Cox's e-mail address is hosed?"
• In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: e2fs performance as function of block size"
• Next in thread: Brian Pomerantz: "Re: e2fs performance as function of block size"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 21:00:24 EST