[Ocfs2-users] ocfs2 vs ext3?
Sunil Mushran
sunil.mushran at oracle.com
Thu Apr 30 11:02:10 PDT 2009
Andrew (Anything) wrote:
> Ive been testing using bonnie++ -n 50:1024:0:10 -s 0. Is this a bad way to
> test?
> Some raw results follow later in case you want them.
>
> Obviously ocfs2 should be slower than ext3.
> But I guess I expected a single node ocfs node to be only doing internal
> stuff with kernel and dlm at really fast cpu speeds, and its only bottleneck
> to be writing to the disk. For it to be so slow it must be doing heaps of
> disk stuff instead?
>
> Had tried a few dd tests however oflag=direct seems to cause an instant
> kernel panic, I don't know if I am to trust dd's results without directio.
>
> Andy..
>
>
> ext3, noatime,
> bonnie++ -d /mnt/temp/ -n 50:1024:0:10 -s 0
> Version 1.03e ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
> wombat -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
> files:max /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec
> %CP
> 50:1024:0/10 10838 43 +++++ +++ 20386 50 7147 28 +++++ +++ 17248
> 44
>
>
> ocfs2, -T mail max-features, noatime,data=writeback,
> bonnie++ -d /mnt/temp/ -n 50:1024:0:10 -s 0
> Version 1.03e ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
> wombat -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
> files:max /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec
> %CP
> 50:1024:0/10 1429 53 10849 32 1224 8 1354 51 205 2 292
> 4
>
> I ran both a few times just in case.
Yes, it is doing heaps more disk io compared to ext3 simply due to the fact
the ext3's inode is 128 bytes whereas ocfs2's is 1 block. So choosing a
smaller block size will improve create performance. However, that is not
recommended because smaller block sizes will negatively affect the r/w
performance.
Have you tried running bonnie on multiple nodes concurrently? The create
performance will scale up to the limit of your io subsystem.
More information about the Ocfs2-users
mailing list