Hi I've seen in various places that ocfs2 on a single node can perform almost as well as en ext3 partition. However on any test I do with bonnie++ my ocfs2 test is 10x slower than ext3. ext3: 15000+ random file creations ocfs2: 1500 random file creations. I created the ext3 disk with defaults, and the ocfs2 disk with T mail --fs-feature-level=max-features, and mounted with data=writeback,noatime. I updated to 2.6.29.1 before I ran any tests in case it helped. Can someone tell me where I am going wrong? Andy.. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-users/attachments/20090429/12507b08/attachment.html
Hi Andrew, I just checked max-features, it doesn't include "local" which means that you still need to create dlm lock in your local node which will cost some delay. You can check whether your volume enable "local" by command echo 'stats'|debugfs.ocfs2 /dev/sdX|grep "Incompat" If the volume is mkfsed to used as local disk, you should see "local". Otherwise you need to add "--fs-features=local" to your mkfs. Regards, Tao Andrew (Anything) wrote:> > > Hi > > > > I?ve seen in various places that ocfs2 on a single node can perform > almost as well as en ext3 partition. > > > However on any test I do with bonnie++ my ocfs2 test is 10x slower than > ext3. > > > > ext3: 15000+ random file creations > > ocfs2: 1500 random file creations. > > > > I created the ext3 disk with defaults, and the ocfs2 disk with T mail > --fs-feature-level=max-features, and mounted with data=writeback,noatime. > > I updated to 2.6.29.1 before I ran any tests in case it helped. > > > > Can someone tell me where I am going wrong? > > > > > > Andy.. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Ocfs2-users mailing list > Ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com > http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
Dear Andrew, I think the result should be normal because ocfs2 is a cluster fs ? _________ Thomas Lau Product Engineer Product Development NTT Com Asia Limited Phone: +852 3793-0733 Address: 12/F., Guardian House, 32 Oi Kwan Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong Email: thomas.lau at ntt.com.hk Andrew (Anything) wrote:> > Hi > > I?ve seen in various places that ocfs2 on a single node can perform > almost as well as en ext3 partition. > > > However on any test I do with bonnie++ my ocfs2 test is 10x slower > than ext3. > > ext3: 15000+ random file creations > > ocfs2: 1500 random file creations. > > I created the ext3 disk with defaults, and the ocfs2 disk with T mail > --fs-feature-level=max-features, and mounted with data=writeback,noatime. > > I updated to 2.6.29.1 before I ran any tests in case it helped. > > Can someone tell me where I am going wrong? > > Andy.. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Ocfs2-users mailing list > Ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com > http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
Hi Tao> echo 'stats'|debugfs.ocfs2 /dev/sdX|grep "Incompat"I re-read your reply with the Incompat flag check and it made me think to check what mine were showing. I found that my format with max-features meant that it wasn't using all the available features. Some are probably quite important for performance. mkfs.ocfs2 -T mail --fs-feature-level=max-features /dev/sda debugfs.ocfs2 stats was showing: Feature Compat: 1 BackupSuper Feature Incompat: 272 Sparse ExtendedSlotMap I downloaded the ocfs2-tools via git, instead of the 1.4.1 source file on the ocfs website, and reformatted my partition with the following options (just in case) mkfs.ocfs2 -T mail --fs-feature-level=max-features --fs-features=backup-super,sparse,unwritten,inline-data,noxattr /dev/sda debugfs.ocfs2 stats now shows: Feature Compat: 3 BackupSuper JBD2SuperBlock Feature Incompat: 2384 Sparse ExtendedSlotMap InlineData MetaECC Performance is considerably better when tested with bonnie++ -n 25:1024:0:10, probably because of the inline data. -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files:max /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP before 25:1024:0/10 1721 39 +++++ +++ 2655 13 1806 44 +++++ +++ 1995 19 before 50:1024:0/10 1645 62 976 8 1586 11 1469 56 120 1 336 5 after 25:1024:0/10 4015 83 +++++ +++ 3119 12 3872 80 +++++ +++ 1953 13 after 50:1024:0/10 2486 80 99692 100 2737 14 2694 88 83541 98 615 5 Are there any other features im missing that might effect performance? And what does the incompat flags mean? I had mistaken them to mean that these features are available but incompatible with this partition, ie: not used. Andy..