a comparison of ext3, jfs, and xfs on hardware raid
Jeffrey W. Baker
jwbaker at acm.org
Thu Jul 14 00:12:26 UTC 2005
I'm setting up a new file server and I just can't seem to get the
expected performance from ext3. Unfortunately I'm stuck with ext3 due
to my use of Lustre. So I'm hoping you dear readers will send me some
tips for increasing ext3 performance.
The system is using an Areca hardware raid controller with 5 7200RPM
SATA disks. The RAID controller has 128MB of cache and the disks each
have 8MB. The cache is write-back. The system is Linux 2.6.12 on amd64
with 1GB system memory.
Using bonnie++ with a 10GB fileset, in MB/s:
ext3 jfs xfs
Read 112 188 141
Write 97 157 167
Rewrite 51 71 60
These number were obtained using the mkfs defaults for all filesystems
and the deadline scheduler. As you can see JFS is kicking butt on this
Next I used pgbench to test parallel random I/O. pgbench has
configurable number of clients and transactions per client, and can
change the size of its database. I used a database of 100 million
tuples (scale factor 1000). I times 100,000 transactions on each
filesystem, with 10 and 100 clients per run. Figures are in
transactions per second.
ext3 jfs xfs
10 Clients 55 81 68
100 Clients 61 100 64
Here XFS is not substantially faster but JFS continues to lead.
JFS is roughly 60% faster than ext3 on pgbench and 40-70% faster on
bonnie++ linear I/O.
Are there any tunables that I might want to adjust to get better
performance from ext3?
More information about the Ext3-users