Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:37:43 +0100
From:      Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
To:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: gjournal panic 7.0-RC1
Message-ID:  <fo5j8e$96g$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <47A63610.4070608@protected-networks.net>
References:  <3aaaa3a0802030751w69ce59a9oeb869e3d87d92616@mail.gmail.com>	<fo58j1$7hq$1@ger.gmane.org>	<47A62B00.1060403@egr.msu.edu>	<3aaaa3a0802031318y2e3fd33en8071c82172ab9ecf@mail.gmail.com> <47A63610.4070608@protected-networks.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigABE262E7FCBEA5D933381A10
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Michael Butler wrote:

> I would think that journaling on one drive and storing the resultant=20
> data-set on another would improve performance enormously (reduced=20
> seek-lengths) and more so if they were 1) high-rpm drives (less=20
> rotational latency) and 2) on different buses (no bus/controller=20
> contention),

There are (very near) limits to what you can do with such a setup: the=20
drive that holds the external journal needs to be much faster than the=20
data drive, since it will become the main bottleneck in IO. It has to be =

faster mostly in sequential IO, seeks are only present when transferring =

journal data to the main drives while under simultaneous write IO from=20
the file system. Ideally, the journal drive would have to deliver at=20
least twice as sequential IO as the main drive to maximize the potential =

performance. Thus, using a conveniently small medium as an USB flash=20
drive is not very useful (the high seek rate will remain unused and=20
sequential performance is generally lower than regular drives)

I've done some benchmarking. The setup is: three 7.5k RPM drives, two in =

RAID0, one for the journal. Here's a summary of the results:

UFS+SU:

bonnie++: writes: 102 MB/s, rewrites: 47 MB/s, reads: 103 MB/s
postmark: 110 trans/s

UFS+GJ:

bonnie++: writes: 35 MB/s, rewrites: 22 MB/s, reads: 99 MB/s
postmark: 123 trans/s

UFS+GJ-detached:

bonnie++: writes: 46 MB/s, rewrites: 36 MB/s, reads: 100 MB/s
postmark: 263 trans/s

Postmark is configured to have a bias for writing a lot of small files,=20
and benefits a lot from the detached journal. Margins of errors are=20
around +/- 3 MB/s for bonnie++ and around 15 trans/s for postmark.

For comparison, here are the results for Linux 2.6.23, regular ext3:

bonnie++: writes: 105 MB/s, rewrites: 52 MB/s, reads: 128 MB/s
postmark: 173 trans/s




--------------enigABE262E7FCBEA5D933381A10
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHplBNldnAQVacBcgRAuMyAJ0ce6nqja0lrkrGRAInm8Xn74fZVQCgsl5h
+N3qni0MsBUnACGru8blBno=
=RTXJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigABE262E7FCBEA5D933381A10--




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fo5j8e$96g$1>