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

Another interesting benchmark by Duane.

www.perl.org/tpc/2002/sessions/wessels_duane.ppt

Rgds,
Wei Keong

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Joe Cooper wrote:

> Yep, I've seen those benchmarks, and they reflect my experience as well.
> It goes without saying that ReiserFS should be mounted notail,noatime
> (ext2/3 should also be mounted noatime).
>
> Wei Keong wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > Found this test by Scott
> >
> > http://www.net.oregonstate.edu/~kveton/fs/
> >
> > Reiserfs (noatime, notail) seems to be superior... Any comments?
> >
> > Rgds,
> > Wei Keong
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Joe Cooper wrote:
> >
> >
> >>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
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
> Web caching appliances and support.
> http://www.swelltech.com
>
Received on Wed Oct 23 2002 - 21:14:44 MDT