| /openbmc/linux/fs/ext4/ |
| H A D | ext4_jbd2.h | 0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | ext4_jbd2.c | 0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | ioctl.c | 0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | resize.c | 0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | balloc.c | 0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | xattr.c | 0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | ialloc.c | 0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | inode.c | 759d427a Mon May 25 10:51:00 CDT 2009 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: remove unused function __ext4_write_dirty_metadata
The __ext4_write_dirty_metadata() function was introduced by commit
0390131b, "ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal", but nothing
ever used the function, either then or since. So let's remove it and
save a bit of space.
Cc: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
759d427a Mon May 25 10:51:00 CDT 2009 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> ext4: remove unused function __ext4_write_dirty_metadata
The __ext4_write_dirty_metadata() function was introduced by commit
0390131b, "ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal", but nothing
ever used the function, either then or since. So let's remove it and
save a bit of space.
Cc: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | mballoc.c | 0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | extents.c | 0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | namei.c | 0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | migrate.c | 0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|
| H A D | super.c | 0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
0390131b Tue Jan 06 23:06:22 CST 2009 Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com> ext4: Allow ext4 to run without a journal
A few weeks ago I posted a patch for discussion that allowed ext4 to run
without a journal. Since that time I've integrated the excellent
comments from Andreas and fixed several serious bugs. We're currently
running with this patch and generating some performance numbers against
both ext2 (with backported reservations code) and ext4 with and without
a journal. It just so happens that running without a journal is
slightly faster for most everything.
We did
iozone -T -t 4 s 2g -r 256k -T -I -i0 -i1 -i2
which creates 4 threads, each of which create and do reads and writes on
a 2G file, with a buffer size of 256K, using O_DIRECT for all file opens
to bypass the page cache. Results:
ext2 ext4, default ext4, no journal
initial writes 13.0 MB/s 15.4 MB/s 15.7 MB/s
rewrites 13.1 MB/s 15.6 MB/s 15.9 MB/s
reads 15.2 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
re-reads 15.3 MB/s 16.9 MB/s 17.2 MB/s
random readers 5.6 MB/s 5.6 MB/s 5.7 MB/s
random writers 5.1 MB/s 5.3 MB/s 5.4 MB/s
So it seems that, so far, this was a useful exercise.
Signed-off-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
|