-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I Feel the Need for Speed: Linux File System Throughput Performance, Part 1
,----[ Quote ]
| In two previous articles (here and here) we explored the
| metadata performance of a number of Linux file systems using a
| single micro-benchmark: fdtree.
|
| fdtree as a micro-benchmark is very attractive because it is a
| simple bash script that uses recursion, forcing all cores to be
| used (extremely important with modern processors). It tests the
| ability of the file system to simply create directories and
| files in a tree-structure. The file systems tested typically
| used their default options (except for ext3 and ext4) so tuning
| the file systems for this specific benchmark was not tested.
`----
http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7525/1.html
Recent:
Comparison of File Systems And Speeding Up Applications
,----[ Quote ]
| The results are very impressive and the final patches to libvirt were
| finalised pretty quickly. They're now in the development branch libvirt.
| Coming soon to a virtual machine management application near you.
`----
http://www.amitshah.net/2009/03/comparison-of-file-systems-and-speeding.html
BFS Scheduler Benchmarks
,----[ Quote ]
| While BFS lost with the Threaded I/O Tester disk benchmark, it won with the
| PostMark test profile. The BFS scheduler delivered just fewer than 5% more
| transactions per second than the Completely Fair Scheduler.
|
| Nine tests carried out on a single low-end system (we may carry out more tests
| on multiple systems if there is sufficient interest) is not enough to call one
| scheduler better than the other.
`----
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bfs_scheduler_benchmarks&num=1
Related:
Finding the Fastest Filesystem
,----[ Quote ]
| I was amazed by the numbers. For all but one uniform subset of tests, XFS was
| the clear winner. I even tried synchronous mounts and encrypted volumes as
| little "what if?" exercises, and XFS still came out on top. The parameter
| that cost XFS a total victory was the CFQ elevator on a slower system; ext3
| won most of those cases.
`----
http://gus3.typepad.com/i_am_therefore_i_think/2008/07/finding-the-fas.html
Serverwide Performance Benchmarking
,----[ Quote ]
| Based on my benchmark numbers I think there are a few statements that can be
| labeled "conclusions":
|
| * Tuning your database performance parameters is the best way to improve
| overall system throughput on a shared database and webserver.
| * Except for the data-integrity focused filesystems like Ext3 in
| journalled or ordered mode, filesystem performance is pretty much not a
| major factor contributing to database and webserver throughput.
| * Enabling noatime does not make a big (over 5%) impact on filesystem
| performance for typical database and webserver loads.
| * APC can give a measurable performance boost in PHP script processing,
| of course largely depending on the size of your scripts.
`----
http://www.ffnn.nl/pages/articles/linux/server-wide-performance-benchmarking.php
Linux Cure for Exchange Storage Bloat
,----[ Quote ]
| Users spend precious work hours copying e-mails to desktop PST files â which
| may be backed up rarely or never â or other secondary e-mail storage systems,
| copying them to their hard drives, or just deleting these important business
| records. If an employee needs to reference an old e-mail, he has to remember
| what it was called and where he filed it, then reload the PST file and search
| for the message. The productivity hit can be huge, and there is no guarantee
| the employee will actually find the critical information he is looking for.
|
| [...]
|
| Modern Linux filing systems such as XFS and Ext3 leverage these optimizations
| and support features such as journaling (to ensure hierarchy integrity
| following a power cut), clustering and replication (DRBD), and snapshots (via
| LVM). With modern e-mail server architecture, IT can complete backup
| operations without requiring a freeze or a database snapshot.
`----
http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/storage/features/article.php/3696246
Delve deep into drives
,----[ Quote ]
| Prabhakaran then goes on tracking bugs in all UNIX drivers, describing
| inconsistencies and danger points, tracing the outline of a tougher file
| system and then describing how to create an evolved file system that would
| unite the advantages of most current file systems and overcome most of their
| shortcomings. At the same time, he tries to describe how moving critical
| logical pieces from the driver to the kernel (and therefore sharing this code
| from one file system driver to the other) may make development easier and
| faster while at the same time strengthening existing FS.
`----
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/delve_deep_into_drives
ZFS, XFS, EXT4 Filesystems Compared
,----[ Quote ]
| EXT4 is fast for metadata operations, tar, untar, cpio, and postmark. EXT4 is
| much faster than the others under FFSB. EXT4 with hardware RAID and external
| journal device is ludicrously fast. EXT4 seems to have a bad interaction with
| software RAID, probably because mkfs fails to query the RAID layout when
| setting the filesystem parameters.
|
| ZFS has excellent performance on metadata tests. ZFS has very bad sequential
| transfer with hardware RAID and appalling sequential transfer with software
| RAID. ZFS can copy the linux kernel source code in only 3 seconds! ZFS has
| equal latency for read and write requests under mixed loads, which is good.
|
| XFS has good sequential transfer under Bonnie++. Oddly XFS has better
| sequential reads when using an external journal, which makes little sense. Is
| noatime broken on XFS? XFS is very slow on all the metadata tests. XFS takes
| the RAID layout into consideration and it performs well on randomio with
| hardware or software RAID.
`----
http://tastic.brillig.org/%7Ejwb/zfs-xfs-ext4.html
OpenSolaris ZFS vs. Linux ext3 RAID5
,----[ Quote ]
| Few overarching conclusions can be drawn from the limited results of this
| study. Certainly, there are situations in which the Solaris/RAID-Z
| configuration appears to outperform the Ubuntu/RAID-5 configuration. Many
| questions remain regarding the large discrepancy in CPU usage for small-file
| operations. Likewise, the Ubuntu/RAID-5 configuration appears to perform
| slightly better in certain situations, though not overwhelmingly so. At best,
| under these default configurations, one can say that overall the Solaris
| configuration performs no worse, and indicates that it might perform better
| under live operating conditions. The latter, though, is largely speculation.
`----
http://www.prestonlee.com/archives/121
Why so many filesystems for Linux? What's the difference?
,----[ Quote ]
| * EXT3
|
| * Most popular Linux file system, limited scalability in size and
| number of files
| * Journaled
| * POSIX extended access control
|
| EXT3
| file system is a journaled file system that has the greatest use in
| Linux today. It is the "Linux" File system. It is quite robust and
| quick, although it does not scale well to large volumes nor a great
| number of files. Recently a scalability feature was added called
| htrees, which significantly improved EXT3's scalability.
|
|
| [...]
|
| * FAT32
|
| * Most limited file system, but most ubiquitous
| * Not Journaled
| * No access controls
|
| FAT32
| is the crudest of the file systems listed. Its popularity is with its
| widespread use and popularity in the Windows desktop world and that it
| has made its way into being the file system in flash RAM devices
| (digital cameras, USB memory sticks, etc.). It has no built in security
| access control, so is small and works well in these portable and
| embedded applications. It scales the least of the file systems listed.
| Most systems have FAT32 compatibility support due to its ubiquity.
`----
http://kevin.hatfieldfamilysite.com/?p=104
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkqwtiQACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5REACfV44TJu0YmqX5SlFUWXafo4x9
2rQAoIk2hvSnKEW/YFg8HYfz1ZXcG1z3
=nRO6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
