lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance
From
Date

On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:07 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:

> Hi!
>
>> As requested, I compared performance of VFAT with f2fs on SD card.
>> Following is summary of the measurement.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> VFAT shows better performance on both random write+fsync and buffered-sequential write than f2fs.
>> However, on buffered-random and sequential write+fsync, f2fs still exhibits better performance
>> than other filesystems.
>>
>>
>> * buffered write (1GB file), 4KByte write
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Desktop PC Galaxy-S3
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> sequential (MB/s) random (IOPS) sequential (MB/s) random (IOPS)
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...
>> F2FS 10.6 2675 6.9 1682
>> VFAT 7.3 1108 7.3 1075
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ok, f2fs is bit faster on desktop PC and a bit slower on S3. Good.
>
>
>> * write + fsync (100MB file), 4KByte write
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Desktop PC Galaxy-S3
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> sequential (KB/s) random (IOPS) sequential (KB/s) random (IOPS)
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> F2FS 1057.9 240 772.3 184
>> VFAT 356.5 260 474.4 373
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ok, random access on VFAT is a lot faster on S3 (and only very
> a bit on PC). Any idea why results are so different between PC and S3?
> Does F2FS need significantly more CPU? Does F2FS need significantly
> more RAM? (Booting PC with low mem= option my answer that).
>

Yes, I think that f2fs really needs more CPU and memory for functioning. The f2fs keeps more metadata as VFAT, as I understand. Moreover, it manages six active logs at runtime and GC can works in background. All of it needs in more CPU power.

With the best regards,
Vyacheslav Dubeyko.

> Anyway, it looks like F2FS is pretty fast filesystem...
>
> Pavel
> --
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-23 20:01    [W:0.090 / U:0.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site