FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-21-2009, 12:33 AM
Jerry Geis
 
Default ext4 in 5.3

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.

My question is: will we be able to boot ext4 file systems?
Will the boot partition still be ext3 and then have to mount the ext4
filesystem?
I did not see mention of it in the release notes.

Thanks,

Jerry
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-21-2009, 01:31 AM
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
 
Default ext4 in 5.3

On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 20:33 -0500, Jerry Geis wrote:
> Will the boot partition still be ext3 and then have to mount the ext4
> filesystem?

Yes, but you wouldn't gain much by making /boot ext4.

--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-21-2009, 03:11 AM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default ext4 in 5.3

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.





--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-21-2009, 10:04 AM
Renato de Oliveira Diogo
 
Default ext4 in 5.3

Hi;

Do you test in other file system? Like xfs or jfs?
You can use the "time" command to get the exate time:
# time cp /pathsource/file8g /pathdest/

Post here yours results.

[]s
________________________________________________
Renato de Oliveira Diogo

Bacharel em Ciência da Computação
UNESP - Bauru

LPIC1 - Linux Professional Institute Certification - Nível 1

renato.diogo@gmail.com

renato.diogo@yahoo.com.br



On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 02:11, 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.











--

Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux

How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed

in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

_______________________________________________

CentOS mailing list

CentOS@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-21-2009, 04:33 PM
"nate"
 
Default ext4 in 5.3

Renato de Oliveira Diogo wrote:
> Hi;
>
> Do you test in other file system? Like xfs or jfs?
> You can use the "time" command to get the exate time:
> # time cp /pathsource/file8g /pathdest/
>
> Post here yours results.

I like to use rsync with --progress so it shows realtime
updates on the status of the copy when testing performance
like that.

But I agree that the file system likely will not have a
noticeable overhead with regards to copy performance on
single 8GB files, now 10,000 files that take up 8GB of
space I can see a file system having a performance impact.

nate

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-21-2009, 04:37 PM
Peter Kjellstrom
 
Default ext4 in 5.3

On Wednesday 21 January 2009, nate wrote:
> Renato de Oliveira Diogo wrote:
> > Hi;
> >
> > Do you test in other file system? Like xfs or jfs?
> > You can use the "time" command to get the exate time:
> > # time cp /pathsource/file8g /pathdest/
> >
> > Post here yours results.
>
> I like to use rsync with --progress so it shows realtime
> updates on the status of the copy when testing performance
> like that.
>
> But I agree that the file system likely will not have a
> noticeable overhead with regards to copy performance on
> single 8GB files, now 10,000 files that take up 8GB of
> space I can see a file system having a performance impact.

I disagree. On most raid-controllers we use XFS has a significant advantage
over Ext3 when it comes to large sequential writes. Ext3 gets nowhere near
the bare metal performance.

So, in short, I think it will be interesting to see how Ext4 performs for
this.

/Peter
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-22-2009, 06:09 PM
Florin Andrei
 
Default ext4 in 5.3

Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
>
> I disagree. On most raid-controllers we use XFS has a significant advantage
> over Ext3 when it comes to large sequential writes. Ext3 gets nowhere near
> the bare metal performance.
>
> So, in short, I think it will be interesting to see how Ext4 performs for
> this.

Exactly. There are differences between file systems even when using very
large files sequentially. I did benchmarks on various controllers and my
experience was the same: the file system does matter.

--
Florin Andrei

http://florin.myip.org/
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-22-2009, 10:37 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default ext4 in 5.3

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 (but nothing in large reads).

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_ext4&num=1



--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-22-2009, 10:53 PM
Miguel Medalha
 
Default ext4 in 5.3

"Real World Benchmarks Of The EXT4 File-System"

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ext4_benchmarks&num=1
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-22-2009, 11:11 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default ext4 in 5.3

Stephen John Smoogen 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 (but nothing in large reads).
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_ext4&num=1

Has anything fixed fsync so it works as intended on a single file
without waiting for the whole filesystem metatdata to be written?

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org