Marek Fstump
2011-May-11 22:33 UTC
very poor read / write performance compared to other FS''s?
Hi I am very interested in using BTRFS for my solution but in basic tests it seems to be very poor on read and write performance. I am surprised by this so suspect that maybe I am doing something incorrectly or that there are updates I should be using, but I am not sure how I update BTRFS on SLES11 Summary: RESULTS on link below SLES11 SP1 Compared Sequential read/write performance against XFS and OCFS2 Backend storage – FusionIO SLC SSD = circa 750MBsec Tests set as follows: Filesystem contains 30 x 4GB files (made of random data) Read tests will read from 1 to 30 files concurrently Write tests will write 1 to 30 concurrent NEW files (simple 000’s) dd -direct flag used on writes All defaults used for mounting etc. Results shown in attachment. BTRFS looks an excellent FS and perfect for my application and I am hoping that there are some factors that I am missing and would appreciate any advice / help Graph is here (Thank you ‘cwillu’) http://cwillu.com/files/btrfs/read-write_perf.pdf Marek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
cwillu
2011-May-11 22:41 UTC
Re: very poor read / write performance compared to other FS''s?
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Marek Fstump <marekfstump@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi > > I am very interested in using BTRFS for my solution but in basic tests > it seems to be very poor on read and write performance. I am > surprised by this so suspect that maybe I am doing something > incorrectly or that there are updates I should be using, but I am not > sure how I update BTRFS on SLES11 > > Summary: > RESULTS on link below > SLES11 SP1 > Compared Sequential read/write performance against XFS and OCFS2 > Backend storage – FusionIO SLC SSD = circa 750MBsec > > Tests set as follows: > Filesystem contains 30 x 4GB files (made of random data) > Read tests will read from 1 to 30 files concurrently > Write tests will write 1 to 30 concurrent NEW files (simple 000’s) > dd -direct flag used on writes > > All defaults used for mounting etc. > > Results shown in attachment. > > BTRFS looks an excellent FS and perfect for my application and I am > hoping that there are some factors that I am missing > and would appreciate any advice / help > > Graph is here (Thank you ‘cwillu’) > > http://cwillu.com/files/btrfs/read-write_perf.pdfA couple questions: Which kernel version? How big is the partition the testing is done on? How does btrfs compare if you drop the -direct flag, and instead sync + drop_caches before, and time until sync completes after dd (for all of them, not just btrfs)? There are a couple btrfs mount options that will improve performance in this particular case, but this benchmark may not reflect your actual needs. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Josef Bacik
2011-May-12 15:39 UTC
Re: very poor read / write performance compared to other FS''s?
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:35PM +0100, Marek Fstump wrote:> Hi > > I am very interested in using BTRFS for my solution but in basic tests > it seems to be very poor on read and write performance. I am > surprised by this so suspect that maybe I am doing something > incorrectly or that there are updates I should be using, but I am not > sure how I update BTRFS on SLES11 > > Summary: > RESULTS on link below > SLES11 SP1 > Compared Sequential read/write performance against XFS and OCFS2 > Backend storage – FusionIO SLC SSD = circa 750MBsec > > Tests set as follows: > Filesystem contains 30 x 4GB files (made of random data) > Read tests will read from 1 to 30 files concurrently > Write tests will write 1 to 30 concurrent NEW files (simple 000’s) > dd -direct flag used on writes > > All defaults used for mounting etc. > > Results shown in attachment. > > BTRFS looks an excellent FS and perfect for my application and I am > hoping that there are some factors that I am missing > and would appreciate any advice / help >Yeah our O_DIRECT performance is less than stellar, I just did a bunch of work to try and help us get a little better performance. Would you mind pulling down linus''s git tree and testing on that and seeing if you get better performance? Thanks, Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Marek Fstump
2011-May-12 23:15 UTC
Re: very poor read / write performance compared to other FS''s?
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> wrote:> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:35PM +0100, Marek Fstump wrote: >> Hi >> >> I am very interested in using BTRFS for my solution but in basic tests >> it seems to be very poor on read and write performance. I am >> surprised by this so suspect that maybe I am doing something >> incorrectly or that there are updates I should be using, but I am not >> sure how I update BTRFS on SLES11 >> >> Summary: >> RESULTS on link below >> SLES11 SP1 >> Compared Sequential read/write performance against XFS and OCFS2 >> Backend storage – FusionIO SLC SSD = circa 750MBsec >> >> Tests set as follows: >> Filesystem contains 30 x 4GB files (made of random data) >> Read tests will read from 1 to 30 files concurrently >> Write tests will write 1 to 30 concurrent NEW files (simple 000’s) >> dd -direct flag used on writes >> >> All defaults used for mounting etc. >> >> Results shown in attachment. >> >> BTRFS looks an excellent FS and perfect for my application and I am >> hoping that there are some factors that I am missing >> and would appreciate any advice / help >> > > Yeah our O_DIRECT performance is less than stellar, I just did a bunch of work > to try and help us get a little better performance. Would you mind pulling > down linus''s git tree and testing on that and seeing if you get better > performance? Thanks, > > Josef >Hi Josef Forgive me as i am a ''storage guy'' - so when you say pull down linus''s git tree and test.... do you mean grab the latest kernel? i know very stupid question, but just want to make sure i get it right... if so, then yes i will and i will add some more storage power also to see if it scales. THank you -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Mark Fasheh
2011-May-12 23:34 UTC
Re: very poor read / write performance compared to other FS''s?
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:35PM +0100, Marek Fstump wrote:> I am very interested in using BTRFS for my solution but in basic tests > it seems to be very poor on read and write performance. I am > surprised by this so suspect that maybe I am doing something > incorrectly or that there are updates I should be using, but I am not > sure how I update BTRFS on SLES11Hey Marek, just fyi that the btrfs version in sles11 sp1 is old (by btrfs standards :). That''s not surprising of course as btrfs isn''t supported yet in any enterprise distributions. My guess is that you should see better results with a more recent kernel. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Daniel J Blueman
2011-May-13 02:07 UTC
Re: very poor read / write performance compared to other FS''s?
On 13 May 2011 07:15, Marek Fstump <marekfstump@gmail.com> wrote:> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:35PM +0100, Marek Fstump wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> I am very interested in using BTRFS for my solution but in basic tests >>> it seems to be very poor on read and write performance. I am >>> surprised by this so suspect that maybe I am doing something >>> incorrectly or that there are updates I should be using, but I am not >>> sure how I update BTRFS on SLES11 >>> >>> Summary: >>> RESULTS on link below >>> SLES11 SP1 >>> Compared Sequential read/write performance against XFS and OCFS2 >>> Backend storage – FusionIO SLC SSD = circa 750MBsec >>> >>> Tests set as follows: >>> Filesystem contains 30 x 4GB files (made of random data) >>> Read tests will read from 1 to 30 files concurrently >>> Write tests will write 1 to 30 concurrent NEW files (simple 000’s) >>> dd -direct flag used on writes >>> >>> All defaults used for mounting etc. >>> >>> Results shown in attachment. >>> >>> BTRFS looks an excellent FS and perfect for my application and I am >>> hoping that there are some factors that I am missing >>> and would appreciate any advice / help >>> >> >> Yeah our O_DIRECT performance is less than stellar, I just did a bunch of work >> to try and help us get a little better performance. Would you mind pulling >> down linus''s git tree and testing on that and seeing if you get better >> performance? Thanks, >> >> Josef >> > > Hi Josef > > Forgive me as i am a ''storage guy'' - so when you say pull down linus''s > git tree and test.... do you mean grab the latest kernel? i know very > stupid question, but just want to make sure i get it right... if so, > then yes i will and i will add some more storage power also to see if > it scales.For SLES 11, the kernel RPMs here may be your best shot: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Kernel:/stable/standard/x86_64/ (eg kernel-default-2.6.38.6-1.1.x86_64.rpm) You''ll probably have to download dependent RPMs from there too. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel J Blueman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Marek Fstump
2011-May-26 12:57 UTC
Re: very poor read / write performance compared to other FS''s?
Hi, Following up on this thread i download the latest OpenSUSE and repeated the read / write performamce test and again compared to XFS etc. Reads seem good. But writes are still way down compared to XFS. Also BTRFS seems to scale in performance very purely? whilst all the FS''s i tested ramp up performance within a couple of DDs or threads... btrfs just doesnt, so for most typical writes while XFS is around 1300MBsec , btrfs is only around 500MBsec Any ideas? Marek On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:41 AM, cwillu <cwillu@cwillu.com> wrote:> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Marek Fstump <marekfstump@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi >> >> I am very interested in using BTRFS for my solution but in basic tests >> it seems to be very poor on read and write performance. I am >> surprised by this so suspect that maybe I am doing something >> incorrectly or that there are updates I should be using, but I am not >> sure how I update BTRFS on SLES11 >> >> Summary: >> RESULTS on link below >> SLES11 SP1 >> Compared Sequential read/write performance against XFS and OCFS2 >> Backend storage – FusionIO SLC SSD = circa 750MBsec >> >> Tests set as follows: >> Filesystem contains 30 x 4GB files (made of random data) >> Read tests will read from 1 to 30 files concurrently >> Write tests will write 1 to 30 concurrent NEW files (simple 000’s) >> dd -direct flag used on writes >> >> All defaults used for mounting etc. >> >> Results shown in attachment. >> >> BTRFS looks an excellent FS and perfect for my application and I am >> hoping that there are some factors that I am missing >> and would appreciate any advice / help >> >> Graph is here (Thank you ‘cwillu’) >> >> http://cwillu.com/files/btrfs/read-write_perf.pdf > > A couple questions: > > Which kernel version? > How big is the partition the testing is done on? > How does btrfs compare if you drop the -direct flag, and instead sync > + drop_caches before, and time until sync completes after dd (for all > of them, not just btrfs)? > > There are a couple btrfs mount options that will improve performance > in this particular case, but this benchmark may not reflect your > actual needs. >