File System Performance Issue

  • Permalink
  • submit to reddit
  • Email
  • Follow


We have been benchmarking Ubuntu 10.04 vs OpenSuse 11. We notice that
the OpenSuse file system is just faster than Ubuntu.

For example, tar -xf linux-2.6.36-rc3.tar.bz2 runs in 35 seconds on
OpenSuse, and 45 seconds on Ubuntu. Both systems are using ext4 and
bunzip 1.05 and tar 1.22 or 1.23.

Is Ubuntu mounting it's root filesystem with some journalling option
that is slower than OpenSuse? Any other guesses?

-Thanks
-Kitplane01
0
Reply kitplane01 (1) 11/22/2010 5:21:30 PM

See related articles to this posting

"Charles Talleyrand" <kitplane01@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:2097f955-cb60-44b9-832a-a4dea5a2ac85@z19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> We have been benchmarking Ubuntu 10.04 vs OpenSuse 11. We notice that
> the OpenSuse file system is just faster than Ubuntu.
>
> For example, tar -xf linux-2.6.36-rc3.tar.bz2 runs in 35 seconds on
> OpenSuse, and 45 seconds on Ubuntu. Both systems are using ext4 and
> bunzip 1.05 and tar 1.22 or 1.23.
>
> Is Ubuntu mounting it's root filesystem with some journalling option
> that is slower than OpenSuse? Any other guesses?


This may no longer be relevant but a while ago OpenSuse was shipping with 
and using a newer version of gcc than Ubuntu. Several benchmarks (SSL, etc) 
would run faster on Suse because they were built with the newer compiler and 
used the latest version of libc.so



0
Reply Ezekiel 11/22/2010 5:40:03 PM


Charles Talleyrand pulled this Usenet face plant:

> We have been benchmarking Ubuntu 10.04 vs OpenSuse 11. We notice that
> the OpenSuse file system is just faster than Ubuntu.
>
> For example, tar -xf linux-2.6.36-rc3.tar.bz2 runs in 35 seconds on
> OpenSuse, and 45 seconds on Ubuntu. Both systems are using ext4 and
> bunzip 1.05 and tar 1.22 or 1.23.
>
> Is Ubuntu mounting it's root filesystem with some journalling option
> that is slower than OpenSuse? Any other guesses?
>
> -Thanks
> -Kitplane01

Same drive?

noatime set on SuSE?  (mount -v)

-- 
Anthony's Law of the Workshop:
	Any tool when dropped, will roll into the least accessible
	corner of the workshop.
  
Corollary:
	On the way to the corner, any dropped tool will first strike
	your toes.
0
Reply Chris 11/22/2010 5:49:18 PM

Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:

> Charles Talleyrand pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> We have been benchmarking Ubuntu 10.04 vs OpenSuse 11. We notice that
>> the OpenSuse file system is just faster than Ubuntu.
>>
>> For example, tar -xf linux-2.6.36-rc3.tar.bz2 runs in 35 seconds on
>> OpenSuse, and 45 seconds on Ubuntu. Both systems are using ext4 and
>> bunzip 1.05 and tar 1.22 or 1.23.
>>
>> Is Ubuntu mounting it's root filesystem with some journalling option
>> that is slower than OpenSuse? Any other guesses?
>>
>> -Thanks
>> -Kitplane01
>
> Same drive?
>
> noatime set on SuSE?  (mount -v)


Totally different OSen with different daemons/processes running,
different ram caches etc etc.

It could be one of millions of things.
0
Reply Hadron 11/22/2010 6:37:31 PM

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.development.system.]
On Mon, 2010-11-22, Hadron wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:
>
>> Charles Talleyrand pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>
>>> We have been benchmarking Ubuntu 10.04 vs OpenSuse 11. We notice that
>>> the OpenSuse file system is just faster than Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> For example, tar -xf linux-2.6.36-rc3.tar.bz2 runs in 35 seconds on
>>> OpenSuse, and 45 seconds on Ubuntu. Both systems are using ext4 and
>>> bunzip 1.05 and tar 1.22 or 1.23.
>>>
>>> Is Ubuntu mounting it's root filesystem with some journalling option
>>> that is slower than OpenSuse? Any other guesses?
>>>
>>> -Thanks
>>> -Kitplane01
>>
>> Same drive?
>>
>> noatime set on SuSE?  (mount -v)
>
>
> Totally different OSen with different daemons/processes running,
> different ram caches etc etc.
>
> It could be one of millions of things.

It *could*, but a proper investigation /can/ tell what the difference
is. Just measuring wall clock time and deciding that "the OpenSuse
file system is just faster" is way too simplistic.

Try to at least look at the output from time(1), vmstat and mpstat.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .  .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .
0
Reply Jorgen 11/22/2010 7:40:56 PM

Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.development.system.]
> On Mon, 2010-11-22, Hadron wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>
>>> Charles Talleyrand pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>>
>>>> We have been benchmarking Ubuntu 10.04 vs OpenSuse 11. We notice that
>>>> the OpenSuse file system is just faster than Ubuntu.
>>>>
>>>> For example, tar -xf linux-2.6.36-rc3.tar.bz2 runs in 35 seconds on
>>>> OpenSuse, and 45 seconds on Ubuntu. Both systems are using ext4 and
>>>> bunzip 1.05 and tar 1.22 or 1.23.
>>>>
>>>> Is Ubuntu mounting it's root filesystem with some journalling option
>>>> that is slower than OpenSuse? Any other guesses?
>>>>
>>>> -Thanks
>>>> -Kitplane01
>>>
>>> Same drive?
>>>
>>> noatime set on SuSE?  (mount -v)
>>
>>
>> Totally different OSen with different daemons/processes running,
>> different ram caches etc etc.
>>
>> It could be one of millions of things.
>
> It *could*, but a proper investigation /can/ tell what the difference
> is. Just measuring wall clock time and deciding that "the OpenSuse
> file system is just faster" is way too simplistic.

Thats what I said above. There are too many unknowns.

>
> Try to at least look at the output from time(1), vmstat and mpstat.

Any timings are totally and utterly useless unless we know the operating
framework.

There can be no "proper investigation" without ensuring similar
operating conditions. It's not rocket science.

0
Reply Hadron 11/22/2010 11:34:10 PM

Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> writes:

> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.development.system.]
>> On Mon, 2010-11-22, Hadron wrote:
>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Charles Talleyrand pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>>>
>>>>> We have been benchmarking Ubuntu 10.04 vs OpenSuse 11. We notice that
>>>>> the OpenSuse file system is just faster than Ubuntu.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, tar -xf linux-2.6.36-rc3.tar.bz2 runs in 35 seconds on
>>>>> OpenSuse, and 45 seconds on Ubuntu. Both systems are using ext4 and
>>>>> bunzip 1.05 and tar 1.22 or 1.23.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Ubuntu mounting it's root filesystem with some journalling option
>>>>> that is slower than OpenSuse? Any other guesses?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Thanks
>>>>> -Kitplane01
>>>>
>>>> Same drive?
>>>>
>>>> noatime set on SuSE?  (mount -v)
>>>
>>>
>>> Totally different OSen with different daemons/processes running,
>>> different ram caches etc etc.
>>>
>>> It could be one of millions of things.
>>
>> It *could*, but a proper investigation /can/ tell what the difference
>> is. Just measuring wall clock time and deciding that "the OpenSuse
>> file system is just faster" is way too simplistic.
>
> Thats what I said above. There are too many unknowns.
>
>>
>> Try to at least look at the output from time(1), vmstat and mpstat.
>
> Any timings are totally and utterly useless unless we know the operating
> framework.
>
> There can be no "proper investigation" without ensuring similar
> operating conditions. It's not rocket science.

Except that in this case the whole question is to determine which of the
variables are the relevant ones.  People have made a couple of
suggestions that are up above; we can safely say, though, that it's
*extremely* unlikely that the different daemons running would make that
sort of difference.

Try using tune2fs -l to see what the filesystem parameters are.
-- 
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
0
Reply Joe 11/23/2010 1:03:54 AM

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.development.system.]
On Mon, 2010-11-22, Hadron wrote:
> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.development.system.]
>> On Mon, 2010-11-22, Hadron wrote:
>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Charles Talleyrand pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>>>
>>>>> We have been benchmarking Ubuntu 10.04 vs OpenSuse 11. We notice that
>>>>> the OpenSuse file system is just faster than Ubuntu.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, tar -xf linux-2.6.36-rc3.tar.bz2 runs in 35 seconds on
>>>>> OpenSuse, and 45 seconds on Ubuntu. Both systems are using ext4 and
>>>>> bunzip 1.05 and tar 1.22 or 1.23.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Ubuntu mounting it's root filesystem with some journalling option
>>>>> that is slower than OpenSuse? Any other guesses?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Thanks
>>>>> -Kitplane01
>>>>
>>>> Same drive?
>>>>
>>>> noatime set on SuSE?  (mount -v)
>>>
>>>
>>> Totally different OSen with different daemons/processes running,
>>> different ram caches etc etc.
>>>
>>> It could be one of millions of things.
>>
>> It *could*, but a proper investigation /can/ tell what the difference
>> is. Just measuring wall clock time and deciding that "the OpenSuse
>> file system is just faster" is way too simplistic.
>
> Thats what I said above. There are too many unknowns.

But that's the /opposite/ of what I write!

Unless you mean "there's not enough information in the posting",
rather than "it's a mystery which noone can ever explain". I agree
with the former of course, but not with the latter.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .  .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .
0
Reply Jorgen 11/23/2010 12:42:13 PM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 117092 articles. 8 followers. Post

7 Replies
223 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 34


  • Permalink
  • submit to reddit
  • Email
  • Follow


Reply:

Similar Artilces:

ext3 File System Performance Issue
Dear all, I am writing a program which generates lots of temp files, and need to remove the unneeded ones (to save disk space) during execution. Currently I put them into the /tmp directory, but I found the performance very slow, especially during the file remove phase when the number of files generated is large. (Each file size is small, at a maximum of 16KB, though.) Is it true that when a single file is removed in ext3 file system, the time needed is proportional to the number of files inside the directory? Or is there a "threshold" number of files that can be stored...

File System and Performance
Is there any good link/article on File system performance. ? Which file system should one use to have min. response time ? Faster server ? <on Various OS solaris/linux/aix etc> i.e. say for ex. if i am going to have httpd installed on RH Linux AS , Is ext2 or ext3 or other fs likely to give faster performance ? any link/article or personal experience on Solaris/AIX/Linux/ with various file system comparision ? -Raxit On Aug 7, 3:07 pm, Sheth Raxit <raxitsheth2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there any good link/article on File system performance. ? > > Which file system ...

File System and Performance
Is there any good link/article on File system performance. ? Which file system should one use to have min. response time ? Faster server ? <on Various OS solaris/linux/aix etc> i.e. say for ex. if i am going to have httpd installed on RH Linux AS , Is ext2 or ext3 or other fs likely to give faster performance ? any link/article or personal experience on Solaris/AIX/Linux/ with various file system comparision ? -Raxit Sheth Raxit wrote: > Is there any good link/article on File system performance. ? > > Which file system should one use to have min. response time ? Faster ...

[TCPP-announce] Special Issue on "Performance Modeling and Evaluation of High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Systems
[Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP] ******************************************************************************************* CALL FOR PAPERS Special Issue on Performance Modeling and Evaluation of High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Systems To appear in Performance Evaluation: An International Journal http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/people/personal/mohamed/si-pe.html The world�s unfulfilled appetite for high computation power, supported by advances in VLSI and communications technology as well as algorithms, has led to the rapid deployment of a wid...

[TCPP-announce] Special Issue on "Performance Modeling and Evaluation of High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Systems #2
[Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP] ******************************************************************************************* CALL FOR PAPERS Special Issue on Performance Modeling and Evaluation of High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Systems To appear in Performance Evaluation: An International Journal http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/people/personal/mohamed/si-pe.html The world�s unfulfilled appetite for high computation power, supported by advances in VLSI and communications technology as well as algorithms, has led to the rapid deployment of a wid...

file system cache performance
hi. i was wondering if anyone could offer any insight into how to assess the performance of the file system cache. I am interested in things like hit rate (which % of pages read are coming from the cache instead of from disk), the amount of data read from the cache over a time span, etc. depending on the workload, is it safe to assume that a large percentage of the reclaims reported by vmstat are due to file system cache hits on a system that does a lot of disk io? outside of the ::memstat dcmd for mdb, there seems to be a dearth of information attainable from the system about this issue....

Poor performance from file system
Hi thre, I seem to be having some strange performance glitches since upgrading my kernel from 2.6.6 to 2.6.9. When I'm writing large amounts of data, for example: moving several GB of music files from another machine or writing decoded audio files, the performance of my machine is erratic. Half the time it's working fine, copying across several 4MB MP3 files a second. The other half, the machine is completely locked up and I can't even type. It's so unresponsive, it's difficult even to use top to work out what's consuming all the CPU, but I think it's kjournald. It...

File Read Performance Issue
I am developing an application that reads and stores data from 2 large text files. One file (5750kb) has ~160,000 records and the other (23,000kb) has ~330,000 records. The program reads both files and converts/stores their data into vectors. Also, some indices to unique records are developed (much like a telephone book), so that searches can be efficiently done. The reads at program start take a long time (~2 minutes), and although I use buffers of 4096 size, I can't see other ways to improve this aspect of the program's performance. The data this program uses...

Performance issue with copying a file
We're on AIX 5.3 with two virtual servers on the same physical box. Whenever we copy (rcp or ftp) a 20 Mb file from our Windows client to a directory on the AIX virtual server it takes about 4-5 seconds. However, copying the same file from the AIX virtual server to the Windows client takes about 10 minutes. Any ideas what we should be looking for? On Apr 2, 11:41 pm, Jim <jmr...@comcast.net> wrote: > We're on AIX 5.3 with two virtual servers on the same physical box. > Whenever we copy (rcp or ftp) a 20 Mb file from our Windows client to > a directory on the AIX virtual...