Re: Oracle RAC on OL 6.1
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:16:24 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <pan.2011.11.23.17.16.24_at_gmail.com>
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:47:43 -0800, mhoys wrote:
> "Technology Preview features"... So, does this mean that they removed > support for XFS between versions 6.0 and 6.1??? > > Matthias Hoys
Well, for the normal file operations, especially with small files, Ext4 is quite a bit faster. I've even performed a little benchmark to that end. Unfortunately, a lot of what I am doing are not "normal file operations". Virtual machines operate on virtual disks which are typically 20GB or even more. Databases also have large files which tend to be accessed using direct I/O. In both cases the ability to defragment files can lead to palpable performance gains. I don't know about the "untested" part. XFS was created and put into the open source by SGI, quite a bit before Ext4 was even conceived. XFS is definitely older and more mature of the two. Here is a little benchmark that shows the difference. My /home file system is XFS while the / file system is Ext4. Here is a little something that illustrates the relative speeds:
/home partition (XFS):
[mgogala_at_medo Downloads]$ time dd if=oel-6.1.iso of=/dev/null
5902464+0 records in
5902464+0 records out
3022061568 bytes (3.0 GB) copied, 32.1617 s, 94.0 MB/s
real 0m32.206s user 0m2.869s sys 0m19.141s
[mgogala_at_medo Downloads]$ time dd if=oel-6.1.iso of=/dev/null bs=64k
46113+0 records in
46113+0 records out
3022061568 bytes (3.0 GB) copied, 31.8788 s, 94.8 MB/s
real 0m31.949s user 0m0.048s sys 0m8.055s
[mgogala_at_medo Downloads]$ time dd if=oel-6.1.iso of=/dev/null bs=128k
23056+1 records in
23056+1 records out
3022061568 bytes (3.0 GB) copied, 34.0289 s, 88.8 MB/s
real 0m34.483s user 0m0.051s sys 0m8.358s
[mgogala_at_medo Downloads]$ time dd if=oel-6.1.iso of=/dev/null bs=1024k
2882+1 records in
2882+1 records out
3022061568 bytes (3.0 GB) copied, 32.2709 s, 93.6 MB/s
real 0m32.337s user 0m0.026s sys 0m9.393s
[mgogala_at_medo Downloads]$
/tmp (Ext4):
[mgogala_at_medo tmp]$ time dd if=oel-6.1.iso of=/dev/null
5902464+0 records in
5902464+0 records out
3022061568 bytes (3.0 GB) copied, 28.6371 s, 106 MB/s
real 0m28.675s user 0m2.270s sys 0m14.997s
[mgogala_at_medo tmp]$ time dd if=oel-6.1.iso of=/dev/null bs=64k
46113+0 records in
46113+0 records out
3022061568 bytes (3.0 GB) copied, 29.0088 s, 104 MB/s
real 0m29.067s user 0m0.084s sys 0m10.453s
[mgogala_at_medo tmp]$ time dd if=oel-6.1.iso of=/dev/null bs=128k
23056+1 records in
23056+1 records out
3022061568 bytes (3.0 GB) copied, 27.0044 s, 112 MB/s
real 0m27.065s user 0m0.054s sys 0m10.663s
[mgogala_at_medo tmp]$ time dd if=oel-6.1.iso of=/dev/null bs=1024k
2882+1 records in
2882+1 records out
3022061568 bytes (3.0 GB) copied, 26.5206 s, 114 MB/s
real 0m26.580s user 0m0.017s sys 0m11.921s
[mgogala_at_medo tmp]$
Here is the reason why I selected XFS despite that:
[mgogala_at_medo tmp]$ filefrag /tmp/oel-6.1.iso
/tmp/oel-6.1.iso: 28 extents found
[mgogala_at_medo tmp]$ filefrag ~/Downloads/oel-6.1.iso
/home/mgogala/Downloads/oel-6.1.iso: 1 extent found
-- http://mgogala.byethost5.comReceived on Wed Nov 23 2011 - 11:16:24 CST