EXT4 vs XFS: large volumes with high-end RAID controller

Written by Gionatan Danti on . Posted in Linux & Unix

User Rating:  / 7
PoorBest 

Sysbench file benchmark

Filesystem I/O performances are a difficult thing to profile. For this reason, I run another set of sequential and random I/O transfer benchmarks using the sysbench utility. Sequential speed tests were run with 2 MB big blocks, while random speed with 4 KB blocks.

Let's start with sequential speed:

EXT4 vs XFS

We don't have a clear winner in this test.

Now, random speed:

EXT4 vs XFS

This test constantly give us very strange results when paired with a XFS filesystem, so take these scores with a (very big) grant of salt.

Sysbench file I/O benchmark give us the opportunity to use DIRECT I/O also. How EXT4 and XFS fare in sequential, direct I/O test?

EXT4 vs XFS

EXT4 in synchronous, direct mode seems penalized in the write test, while in the others we see a substantial parity.

And in random, directed I/O pattern?

EXT4 vs XFS

Again, we see very strange XFS results...

All considered, while sequential I/O scores are interesting and in line to what I expected, I tend to not consider Sysbench random test as a representative one. So, Sysbench file I/O shows us a virtual tie between EXT4 and XFS.

Comments   

 
#1 Evgeny 2012-12-10 07:21
it's looks that you fsck time ext4 isn't true.
I think that you ran fsck.ext4 /dev/sd__something__
without "-f" key. It's means that fsck FS state
tune2fs -l
...
Filesystem state: clean
...
and if it clean do nothing
 

You have no rights to post comments