cpio to ext4 seems much slower than to ext2, ext3 or xfs
Daniel P. Berrange
berrange at redhat.com
Thu Nov 12 09:54:12 UTC 2009
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:05:20PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 01:24:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Anybody got actual numbers? I don't disagree that mkfs.ext4 is slow in
> > the default config, but I don't think it should be slower than mkfs.ext3
> > for the same sized disks.
>
> Easy with guestfish:
>
> $ guestfish --version
> guestfish 1.0.78
> $ for fs in ext2 ext3 ext4 xfs jfs ; do guestfish sparse /tmp/test.img 10G : run : echo $fs : sfdiskM /dev/sda , : time mkfs $fs /dev/sda1 ; done
> ext2
> elapsed time: 5.21 seconds
> ext3
> elapsed time: 7.87 seconds
> ext4
> elapsed time: 6.10 seconds
> xfs
> elapsed time: 0.45 seconds
> jfs
> elapsed time: 0.78 seconds
>
> Note that because this is using a sparsely allocated disk each write
> to the virtual disk is very slow. Change 'sparse' to 'alloc' to test
> this with a non-sparse file-backed disk.
You really want to avoid using sparse files at all when doing any kind of
benchmark / performance tests in VMs. The combo of a sparse file store on
a journalling filesystem in the host, w/ virt can cause very pathelogically
bad I/O performance until the file has all its extents fully allocated on
the host FS. So the use of a sparse file may well be exagarating the real
difference in elapsed time between these different mkfs calls in the
guest.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list