(2013-12-19, 19:43)xbs08 Wrote: [ -> ]Can this be right??
It's a bit quick. About 5MB/s is not impossible, but considering you are reading and writing the same device, and doing so with thousands of small files, that seems pretty high.
Perhaps this is fairer:
time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
The sync will ensure the files have actually been written, rather than still sitting in a cache.
Rebuilding a large database would probably be a good test for disk access. Lots of small reads and writes.
(2013-12-19, 20:03)xbs08 Wrote: [ -> ]OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 0m 38.67s
user 0m 0.20s
sys 0m 4.03s
I get similar (high) results:
Code:
OpenELEC:~ # du -csh /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails
416.2M /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails
416.2M total
OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 0m 49.86s
user 0m 0.41s
sys 0m 8.89s
This is with f2fs my fast Sandisk Extreme USB flash drive.
Do we have baseline results with ext4 for comparison?
With Patriot USB 3.0 F2FS
Code:
OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 0m 27.92s
user 0m 0.19s
sys 0m 3.71s
OpenELEC:~ # time rm -rf /storage/downloads/Thumbnails
real 0m 0.41s
user 0m 0.04s
sys 0m 0.28s
(2013-12-19, 21:22)allan87 Wrote: [ -> ]Do we have baseline results with ext4 for comparison?
That's what we need. Should have made two partition on USB drive - one f2fs and one ext4 which would have made this easier.
I'll try doing some EXT4 test asap.
Silicon -power USB 2.0 4GB - EXT4 vs. F2FS
EXT4
Code:
OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 5m 46.35s
user 0m 0.19s
sys 0m 5.80s
OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 2m 19.73s
user 0m 0.18s
sys 0m 5.70s
OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 4m 40.97s
user 0m 0.21s
sys 0m 5.92s
F2FS
(2013-12-19, 20:03)xbs08 Wrote: [ -> ]Code:
OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 0m 38.67s
user 0m 0.20s
sys 0m 4.03s
OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 0m 36.25s
user 0m 0.20s
sys 0m 4.46s
OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 0m 38.76s
user 0m 0.23s
sys 0m 4.56s
OpenELEC:~ # du -csh /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails
151.8M /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails
151.8M total
Silicon -power USB 2.0 EXT4 format performs better in library (worse in general UI tasks) in relation to Patriot USB 3.0 but with F2FS format Patriot performs better in library and UI.
That is amazing. I also have Patriot 3.0 16GB and I'm eager to switch to F2FS. Is it enough to format and rsync the contents of the Storage partition?
I made a backup of .xbmc, format to F2FS, restored .xbmc and reboot.
You'll need GParted 0.16 or up to format to F2FS.
BTW copying .xbmc folder to EXT4 took a lot longer than it did to F2FS
F2FS - Patriot USB 3.0 16 GB - 151MB Thumbnails
Code:
OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 0m 27.48s
user 0m 0.21s
sys 0m 4.01s
OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 0m 27.49s
user 0m 0.16s
sys 0m 4.01s
OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 0m 27.84s
user 0m 0.21s
sys 0m 3.96s
If you can, please do the same tests so we can compare results.
Thanks.
(2013-12-19, 21:14)popcornmix Wrote: [ -> ] (2013-12-19, 20:03)xbs08 Wrote: [ -> ]OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 0m 38.67s
user 0m 0.20s
sys 0m 4.03s
I get similar (high) results:
I guess I must have a really slow usb stick. However, I cannot repeat the 9 minutes odd with ext4 storage - the only thing I can think of for the discrepancy is that I've been working with image files for each of the ext4 and f2fs storage (which also explains the difference in thumbnail files sizes since there were 2 days between me making the images) and it might have got corrupted when I re-imaged the usb stick or there might have been something running in the background (not sure what though).
Anyway re-did the tests (deleting the /downloads/thumbnails folder between each test):
3 tests with ext4 (4GB Sandisk Cruzer):
Code:
openelec:~ # du -csh /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails
247.5M /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails
247.5M total
openelec:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 3m 40.32s best 3m 47.21s worst (1.12MB/s, 1.09MB/s)
user 0m 0.81s
sys 0m 14.17s
3 tests with f2fs (4GB Sandisk Cruzer):
Code:
openelec:~ # du -csh /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails
301.0M /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails
301.0M total
openelec:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/downloads/Thumbnails && sync"
real 2m 15.49s best 2m 28.96 worst (2.22MB/s, 2.02MB/s)
user 0m 0.76s
sys 0m 10.40s
This still represents approx. 90% increase in performance so I guess I'm going to stick with f2fs.
Quote:What might be interesting is installing a new add-on or skin. I think the write speed would be significant in that.
I seem to remember Aeon Nox took a couple of minutes to install. Installing from a zip file would avoid internet download speed being the bottleneck.
Installing Aeon Nox 4.0.9 from a zip file took 1m 43s for ext4 and 1m 6s for f2fs - I couldn't get texturecache to work (something about JSON-RPC server not running), so I gave up.
here is mine:
f2fs
83.0M /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/
83.0M total
OpenELEC:~ # time sh -c "cp -r /storage/.xbmc/userdata/Thumbnails/* /storage/ &&
sync"
real 0m 31.08s
user 0m 0.25s
sys 0m 3.63s
using Intenso Speed Line 8 GB USB-Stick USB 3.0
copying .xbmc folder is much faster
OE feels a little quicker for me
I'm gonna stick with f2fs too. It's not an overwhelming increase in performance but it's noticeable.
I hesitate to use file system that has not reached its first stable release. It seems imprudent. Anyone know enough about it to say that there are no serious concerns about file corruption, data loss, etc.?
It would also be interesting to see benchmarks that would reflect functions that are used on an everyday basis.