Re: [squid-users] Benchmarks: ext3 vs. ReiserFS (fwd)

Hi Wei Keong,

Comments inline:

Wei Keong wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> My squid is currently running ext2, which is very stable for 100-120 req/s.
> To achieve better performance, am thinking of changing to ext3. But, from the
> forum, there seems to be some performance issue on ext3. Am thinking of
> testing both fs on kernel 2.4.19. Hope you can share what you have done...
>
> - When was the last time you tested the performance of ext3 & reiserfs?

About 8 months ago. The kernel revision was the then current Red Hat
2.4.9-31 (I think 31 is right--it was some kernel package from Red Hat).
  I'm planning another round of tests, because both ReiserFS and ext3
have had significant enhancements that might lead to performance
improvements for Squid. I'm waiting until those enhancements become
mainlined, however. (Specifically, indexes in ext3, and write barriers
in ReiserFS, among other general improvements.)

> - How did you test the performance?

Polygraph, of course.

> - What kind of workload you use?

Polymix-4 and Datacomm-1.

> - What kind of performance did your box achieve (req/s & response time)?

On modest hardware (450Mhz K6-2/256MB/2x7200RPM IDE):

ext3 maxed at about 60 reqs/sec on polymix-4, and about 70 on
datacomm-1. Some modes performed worse than others, but I'd have to dig
up my notes to be more specific.

ReiserFS remained stable at about 85 req/sec on polymix-4, and about 95
on datacomm-1.

Response time is always what I consider 'good'. If a box doesn't remain
under 2000ms average latency (the average latency of a machine
performing extremely well on a polygraph workload is around 1500ms or
less), I don't consider the run 'passed'. Hit rates are expected to be
above 50%.

I'd love to hear about your results. It would be nice to have some
additional data points from other configurations.

-- 
Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
Web caching appliances and support.
http://www.swelltech.com