On Friday 23 January 2009, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Jerry Geis <geisj@pagestation.com> wrote:
> >> Hi guys - I'm really looking forward to 5.3 for the potential of ext4.
> >> I am moving/copying image files lately 8G file and it is slow. I am
> >> hoping that ext4 really speeds that up.
> >
> > I don't think it will speed things up much. 8GB files are mostly
> > hardware throughput and ext3/4 will actually be slower because the
> > journalling etc are to make it more robust but at a speed cost. You
> > would probably see better speed by going to ext2.
>
> I make it a habit of eating my own words if I screw up. If the results
> seen on Ubuntu by one test hold up, it might have a large increase in
> large writes

In my experience write performance for different filesystems is very dependant
on the type of hardware. I have raid controllers where the difference between
Ext3 and XFS is ~20% and I have those where it is 120%...

> (but nothing in large reads).

Read (single thread seq.) is often limited by having a too low read ahead
setting. "blockdev --setra 8192" can often push it up to bare metal speed for
both Ext3 and XFS. It's important to note that this may not be very optimal
for your typical I/O mix (non single thread, non seq.).

/Peter
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> I make it a habit of eating my own words if I screw up. If the results
> seen on Ubuntu by one test hold up, it might have a large increase in
> large writes (but nothing in large reads).
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_ext4&num=1

Right, so - Ext4 faster than Ext2? Not surprising. The on-disk format
has changed. There's less fragmentation. There are all sorts of clever
things included in the new FS. So, yes, it does more work with the disk,
but in a much more intelligent way.

I like the stability of Ext3, but in terms of speed it's not the
sharpest lightbulb in the toolshed. And after many years of using Linux,
I'm not even buying the myth that "Linux doesn't need a FS
defragmenter." That's just not true. It does get fragmented, and due to
that it does get slower.

Ext4 is a welcome improvement. The upcoming btrfs perhaps even more so.

--
Florin Andrei

http://florin.myip.org/
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Florin Andrei wrote:

> I like the stability of Ext3, but in terms of speed it's not the
> sharpest lightbulb in the toolshed.

ROTFL: "sharpest lightbulb in the toolshed."

--
Paul "the only sharp lightbulb is a broken one" Heinlein
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Quoting Florin Andrei <florin@andrei.myip.org>:

> I like the stability of Ext3, but in terms of speed it's not the
> sharpest lightbulb in the toolshed.

Isn't that supposed to be "not the fastest lawnmower in the toolshed" ?

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

on 1-23-2009 1:19 PM Ashley M. Kirchner spake the following:
> Quoting Florin Andrei <florin@andrei.myip.org>:
>
>> I like the stability of Ext3, but in terms of speed it's not the
>> sharpest lightbulb in the toolshed.
>
> Isn't that supposed to be "not the fastest lawnmower in the toolshed" ?
Or " the sharpest crayon in the box".

Sounds like a Biff'ism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biff_Tannen



--
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Scott Silva wrote:
> on 1-23-2009 1:19 PM Ashley M. Kirchner spake the following:
>> Quoting Florin Andrei <florin@andrei.myip.org>:
>>
>>> I like the stability of Ext3, but in terms of speed it's not the
>>> sharpest lightbulb in the toolshed.
>> Isn't that supposed to be "not the fastest lawnmower in the toolshed" ?
> Or " the sharpest crayon in the box".
>
> Sounds like a Biff'ism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biff_Tannen

Well, "fastest knife in the chandelier" didn't sound so good, so...

--
Florin Andrei

http://florin.myip.org/
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Florin Andrei wrote:

> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> I make it a habit of eating my own words if I screw up. If the results
>> seen on Ubuntu by one test hold up, it might have a large increase in
>> large writes (but nothing in large reads).
>>
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_ext4&num=1
>
> Right, so - Ext4 faster than Ext2? Not surprising. The on-disk format
> has changed. There's less fragmentation. There are all sorts of clever
> things included in the new FS. So, yes, it does more work with the disk,
> but in a much more intelligent way.

Fragmentation is good for SSD's. You get better performance on random I/O
than sequential I/O.

--
-- dag wieers, dag@centos.org, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos