Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012, Exercises of English

Download Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 and more Exercises English in PDF only on Docsity! COMPARING FILE SYSTEM I/O PERFORMANCE: RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX 6 VS. MICROSOFT WINDOWS SERVER 2012 Red Hat’ Enterprise Linux’6 superior performance using ext4 and XFS filesystems versus NTFS and ReFSfilesystemson Microsoft” WindowsServer’ 2012 ) redhat When choosing an operating system platform for your servers, you should know what I/O performance to expect from the operating system and file systems you select. In the Principled Technologies labs, using the lOzone file system benchmark, we compared the I/O performance of two operating systems and file system pairs, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 with ext4 and XFS file systems, and Microsoft Windows Server 2012 with NTFS and ReFS file systems. Our testing compared out-of-the-box configurations for each operating system, as well as tuned configurations optimized for better performance, to demonstrate how a few simple adjustments can elevate |/O performance of a file system. We found that file systems available with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 delivered better I/O performance than those shipped with Windows Server 2012, in both out-of- the-box and optimized configurations. With I/O performance playing such a critical role in most business applications, selecting the right file system and operating system combination is critical to help you achieve your hardware’s maximum potential. D EH APRIL 2013 aa 1 A PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES TEST REPORT Commissioned by Red Hat, Inc. About file system and platform configurations While you can use |Ozone to gauge disk performance, we concentrated on the file system performance of two operating systems (OSs): Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, where we examined the ext4 and XFS file systems, and Microsoft Windows Server 2012 Datacenter Edition, where we examined NTFS and RefFS file systems. We deployed each OS in turn on the same hardware configuration, keeping server, processors, RAM, disks, RAID-groups, and other components constant. We tested the file system performance of each OS out-of-the-box and in optimized configurations that included OS and server tuning parameters. The out-of-box configurations used the server’s default BIOS settings for CPU, RAM, and system power profile (see below for more), with standard OS installation parameters. Specifically, we used the default BIOS configuration for the Dell™ PowerEdge™ R720xd, which includes the default system performance profile, called “Performance per Watt Optimized (DAPC).” This configuration setting enables the Intel processor’s Turbo Boost, C States, and C1E settings, and sets the memory frequency to its maximum. The server manages CPU power. We performed the optimized tests with the server’s BIOS set to an OS- controlled system power profile. We adjusted the OS configuration to remove unnecessary processes, enabled the OS’s automatic CPU or power controls, and adjusted file system parameters. For the optimized configurations, we chose the Dell Performance Per Watt Optimized (OS) system profile for our system’s power setting. In the optimized configurations, the Turbo Boost settings, etc. are the same as the default profile, but with the OS managing CPU power. For the complete list of optimizations we used for both operating systems, see the Optimizing operating system configurations section of Appendix B. BETTER DISK PERFORMANCE FOR RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX FILE SYSTEMS For our testing of the four file systems, we used the |Ozone Filesystem Benchmark. |Ozone tests a system’s file |/O performance by simulating file-access patterns that may be used in different enterprise applications, such as database or Web applications, and by using operating system-specific heuristics for reading and writing files, such as direct and asynchronous I/O, as well as operating system-specific optimizations at the file system level. We used the |Ozone benchmark to test 13 synthetic file access patterns for a range of file sizes. For each test, we first used out-of-box (default) settings, and then tested the exact same server and disk hardware with a set of tuning parameters. We ran the 13 tests as a set, and ran each set (of 13) three times for each file system and each data- Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 2 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 As Figure 3 shows, using the out-of-cache method, both file systems we tested on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 delivered better performance than the file systems on Windows Server 2012 in both out-of-box and optimized configurations. The default ext4 file system on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 delivered 7.3 percent better performance than the default NTFS file system on Microsoft Windows Server 2012, and the default XFS file system on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 delivered 5.5 percent better system performance than the default ReFS file system on Windows Server 2012. In optimized configurations, the ext4 file system on Red Hat Enterprise Linux delivered 14.5 percent better performance than the NTFS file system on Microsoft Windows Server 2012, and the optimized XFS file system on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 delivered 14.0 percent better performance than the optimized ReFS file system on Windows Server 2012. Comparison of file system performance - Out of cache 900,000 @ Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 ext4 ™@ Microsoft Windows Server 2012 NTFS 800,000 @ Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 XFS 700,000 ™ Microsoft Windows Server 2012 ReFS 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 Average performance (KB/s) 200,000 100,000 0 Out-of-box Optimized Figure 3: Comparison of the I/O performance in KB/s for the four file systems using the out-of-cache method. The throughput represents the geometric average of 13 |Ozone tests. Higher throughput is better. Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 5 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 As Figure 4 shows, using the direct I/O method, both file systems we tested on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 delivered better performance than the tested file systems on Windows Server 2012 in both out-of-box and optimized configurations. The out-of-box ext4 file system on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 delivered 13 percent better performance than the NTFS file system on Microsoft Windows Server 2012, and the XFS file system on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 delivered 7.8 percent better performance than the ReFS file system on Windows Server 2012. In addition, the optimized ext4 file system on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 delivered 16.9 percent better performance than the optimized NTFS file system on Microsoft Windows Server 2012, and the XFS file system on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 delivered 15.3 percent better performance than the ReFS file system on Windows Server 2012. Comparison of file system performance - Direct I/O 1,400,000 @ Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 ext4 ™ Microsoft Windows Server 2012 NTFS 1,200,000 m Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 XFS a , r + & 1,000,000 § Microsoft Windows Server 2012 ReFS @ & & 800,000 E £ & 600,000 2 o e 5 400,000 < 200,000 0 1 Out-of-box Optimized Figure 4: Comparison of the I/O performance in KB/s for the four file systems using the direct I/O method. The throughput represents the geometric average of 13 IOzone tests. Higher throughput is better. Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 6 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 WHAT WE TESTED About lOzone The Ozone benchmark tests a systems file I/O performance by simulating file- access patterns that may be used in different enterprise applications, and by using operating-system specific heuristics for reading and writing files, such as direct and asynchronous |/O, as well as operating-system specific optimizations at the file system level. The read and write operations lOzone tests include: ¢ Write data to a new file © Overwrite an existing file ¢ Write data to random locations of a file e¢ Write and immediately rewrite data to a fixed section of the file e Write data to a new file using buffered I/O system routines ¢ Overwrite an existing file using buffered 1/O system routines e Read an entire file Read an entire, recently read file Read the entire file starting from the file’s end and proceeding to the beginning ¢ Read data from sections separated by a fixed amount (stride) ¢ Read data from random locations of a file e Read an entire file using buffered |/O system routines e Read an entire, recently read file using buffered I/O For more information about |Ozone, visit http://www.iozone.org. We performed these 13 tests on files of varying sizes ranging from 1 MB to 2 GB. We also varied the record length (or size of the applications read-write buffer) from 8 KB to 1 MB in order to mimic real-world application workloads of varying sizes and kinds and to better gauge the OS’s file system performance under more realistic circumstances. About Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Designed to deliver performance and scalability for both small and large servers, and with documented scalability up to 4,096 CPUs and 64 terabytes of RAM, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 is Red Hat’s flagship server operating system. It provides native support for the majority of the latest and most important enterprise data center technologies, such as 40Gb Ethernet networking and KVM virtualization as well as InfiniBand®, FCoE, and iSCSI protocols. According to Red Hat, the operating system minimizes downtime, increases availability, and protects data due to reliability, serviceability (RAS), and scalability. Red Hat includes open source applications as part of its Linux offering. For more information about Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, see http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/rhel/RHEL6_datasheet.pdf. Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 7 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 System Dell PowerEdge R720xd Number of RAM module(s) 8 Chip organization Double-sided Rank Dual Operating system #1 Name Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 File system ext4 or XFS (see text) Kernel 2.6.32-358.0.1.e16.x86_64, or 2.6.32-358.1.1.e16.x86_64 (see text ) Language English Operating system #2 Name Windows Server 2012 Datacenter Edition Build number 9200 File system NTFS or ReFS (see text) Kernel ACPI x64-based PC Language English Graphics Vendor and model number Matrox® G200eR Graphics memory (MB) 16 Driver Matrox Graphics, Inc 2.3.3.0 (8/19/2011) RAID controller Vendor and model number Dell PERC H710P Mini Firmware version 21.1.0-007 Cache size 1GB RAID configuration OS #1 boot volume: RAID 1 configuration of two disks (Hard drive type #3) OS #2 boot volume: RAID 1 configuration of two disks (Hard drive type #2) lOzone test volume: RAID 0 configuration of 17 disks (Hard drive type #1) OS swap volume: RAID 0 configuration of three disks (Hard drive type #1) Hard drives type #1 Vendor and model number Dell MBF2600RC Number of drives 20 Size (GB) 600 Buffer size (MB) 16 RPM 10K Type SAS Hard drives type #2 Vendor and model number Fujitsu MBB2073RC Number of drives 2 Size (GB) 73 Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 10 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 Buffer size (MB) RPM Type Hard drives type #3 Vendor and model number Number of drives Size (GB) Buffer size (MB) RPM Type Ethernet adapters Vendor and model number Type Optical drive(s) Vendor and model number Type USB ports Number Type 16 10K SAS Dell Sawio ST9146803SS 2 146 16 10K SAS Intel Gigabit 4P 1350-t rNDC Internal TEAC DV-28SW DVD-ROM 4 external, 1 internal 2.0 Figure 5: Configuration information for our test system. Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 11 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 APPENDIX B - HOW WE TESTED Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4: Installation, configurations, and |Ozone testing Installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 1. Insert and boot from the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 x86_64 installation DVD. 2. At the welcome screen, select Install or upgrade an existing system, and press Enter. 3. At the Media test screen, select Skip, and press Enter. 4. At the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 title screen, click Next. 5. At the Choose an Installation Language screen, select English, and click Next. 6. At the Keyboard Type screen, select U.S. English, and click Next. 7. At the Storage Devices screen, select Basic Storage Devices, and click Next. 8. Ifa warning for device initialization appears, select Yes, discard any data. 9. At the Name the Computer screen, type the host name, and click Configure Network. 10. At the Network Connections screen, select the server's main or management network interface, and click Edit. 11. At the Editing network interface screen, check Connect Automatically. 12. On the same screen, select the IPv4 Settings tab, change the Method to Manual, and click Add. 13. On the same screen, enter the IP address, Netmask, Gateway, and DNS server. Click Apply. 14. Click Close on the Network Connections screen, and click Next on the Name the Computer screen. 15. At the Time zone selection screen, select the appropriate time zone, and click Next. 16. Enter the root password in the Root Password and Confirm fields, and click Next. 17. At the Assign Storage Devices screen, from the list in the left column, select the Linux disk, and click the arrow to copy the device to the right column. Next to the Linux disk, click the Boot radio button, and click Next. 18. At the Partition selection screen, select Replace Existing Linux System(s), and click Next. 19. If a warning appears, click Write changes to disk. 20. At the default installation screen, click Next to begin the installation. 21. At the Congratulations screen, click Reboot. 22. After the system reboots, log in as root. 23. Install the XFS package: yum install xfsprogs 24. Create partitions on the [Ozone and swap disks (here /dev/sdb and /dev/sdd, respectively): parted /dev/sdb mklabel gpt parted /dev/sdb mkpart primary "1 -1" parted /dev/sdb name 1 Iozone parted /dev/sdd mklabel gpt parted /dev/sdd mkpart primary linux-swap "1 -1" parted /dev/sdd name 1 Swap 25. Create an ext4 or XFS file system on the lOzone partition (here /dev/sdb1) depending on the test: # Either an ext4 filesystem mkfs.ext4 /dev/sdbl # or XFS file system mkfis.xfs -f£ /dev/sdbl 26. Mount the lozone test disk at /test: Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 12 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. The system will reboot. At the Settings screen, enter the password for the Administrator (twice), and click Finish. Log in as administrator. Open the Server Manager. Select File and Storage Services. Select Disks. From the list of disks, right-click on the |Ozone device, select Reset Disk, and click Yes to erase the data. From the list of disks, right-click on the |Ozone device, and select New Volume... On the Server and Disk screen, select the disk, and click Next. Click OK to initialize the disk with a GPT label. On the Size screen, keep the defaults, and click Next. On the Drive Letter or Folder screen, Select The following folder, and enter c:\test. Click OK to create this folder. On the File System Settings screen, select NTFS or ReFS, depending on the file system under test. On the same screen, enter a Volume label of |Ozone, and click Next. On the Confirmation screen, click Create. Create a volume for swap following steps 12-22 with the location changed to an unused drive letter, and the file system type as NTFS for both tests. Close the Server Manager. From Explorer, right-click Computer, and select Properties. From the System Control Panel, click Advanced Settings. Under Performance, click Settings. Select the Advanced tab. Under Virtual Memory, click Change. On the Virtual Memory screen, select D: (the new swap drive), click Custom Size, and enter the free space on size the drive less 10 MB for both Initial size (MB) and Maximum size (MB). Click Set. On the Virtual Memory screen, select C: (the boot drive), click No paging file, and click Set. On the Virtual Memory screen, click Ok. Close all screens, clicking OK as needed, and restart the server. Installing the Ozone software on Windows Server 2012 The |Ozone software uses Unix/Linux style APIs for file system access. Creating a version for a Windows system uses the Cygwin environment. 1. Download the lOzone 3.414 source code from www.iozone.org. wget http://www. iozone.org/src/current/iozone3_414.tar Un-tar the source code and go to the main directory: tar xf iozone3 _414.tar ed iozone3_414/sre/current/ Modify the makefile to force 32-bit compilation by applying this patchfile: patch < makefile-patch The patch file for IOzone’s makefile (makefile-patch) is diff -u makefile* Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 15 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 --- makefile 2013-03-20 16:51:15.559646000 -0400 +++ makefile- 2013-03-20 16:46:51.007276100 -0400 @@ -9,7 +9,7 ea # convex, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OSFV3, OSFV4, OSFV5, SCO # SCO_Unixware_gcec,NetBSD, TRU64, Mac OS X -cc = cc -m32 +c = ce ceg = c89 ecc = gee ccs = /usr/ccs/bin/ce @@ -1220,10 +1220,10 #@ @echo "" @echo "Building iozone for Windows (No asyne I/O)" @echo "" - $(GCC) -c -03 -Dunix -DHAVE_ANSIC_C -DNO_MADVISE \ - -DWindows $(CFLAGS) iozone.c \ + $(GCC) -c -O -Dmix -DHAVE ANSIC_C -DNO_MADVISE \ + -DWindows § (CFLAGS) -DDONT_HAVE_O DIRECT iozone.c \ -o iozone_windows.o ~ ~~ $(GCC) -c -O -Dmix -DHAVE_ANSIC_C -DNO_MADVISE \ -DWindows $(CFLAGS) libbif.c -o libbif.o Create the iozone binary, iozone. exe. make Windows Copy the Ozone binary and the Cygwin DLL, /bin/cygwin1.dll from the build server to the Windows server under test. Running the lOzone tests on Windows Server 2012 The following three batch scripts are used to perform |Ozone tests for the corresponding file-access methods: direct I/O, in-cache, and out-of-cache. dio.bat rem ## IOzone with Direct I/O, March 2013 rem ## the first argument is added to the run’s output file del \test\tl > NUL 2>a1 . \iozone.exe -n 1024 -g 4096000 -y 8 -q 1024 -a -R -I -f \test\tl > dio-%1%.txt del \test\tl shutdown /r rem ## end of Direct-I/O script inc.bat rem ## IOzone with the In-Filesystem-Cache method, March 2013 rem the first argument is added to the run’s output file del \test\tl > NUL 2>a1 . \iozone.exe -n 1024 -g 4096000 -y 8 -q 1024 -a -R -f \test\tl > inc-%1%.txt del \test\tl shutdown /r rem ## end of In-Filesystem-Cache script out. bat rem ## IOzone with the Out-of-Filesystem-Cache method, March 2013 rem ## the first argument is added to the run’s output file del \test\tl > NUL 2>a1 . \iozone.exe -s 32g -r 64k -C -c -e -w -x -f \test\tl > out-%1%-64k.txt Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 16 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 del \test\tl .\iozone.exe -s 32g -r 1024k -C -c -e -w -x -f \test\tl > out-%1%-1024k.txt del \test\tl shutdown /r rem ## end of Out-of-Filesystem-Cache script Optimizing operating system configurations Before running |Ozone for the optimized Red Hat Enterprise Linux configuration, run the following two bash scripts. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 uses the tuned utility with the enterprise-storage profile to configure the file systems for better performance and to run the CPUs at high performance. AdditionalLinuxFileSystemTuning.sh #!/bin/bash ## For the optimized-configuration tests, ensure the filesystem ## under test is mounted without journal write-barriers ## March 2013 mount /test swapon /dev/sddl tuned-adm profile default tumed-adm profile enterprise-storage mount -o remount,barrier=0 /test cat /proc/mounts swapon -s ## End of AdditionalLinuxFileSystemTuning. sh DisableSomeDefaultServices.sh #!/bin/bash ## For the optimized-configuration tests, disable unneeded services ## March 2013 for i in abrt-ccpp abrt-oops abrtd acpid atd auditd autofs \ avahi-daemon cgconfig crond cups haldaemon irqbalance kdump\ libvirt-guests mcelogd mdmonitor messagebus portreserve\ postfix rhnsd rhsmcertd rpcbind rpcgssd rpcidmapd certmonger\ netfs sysstat; do service $i stop done service lvm2-monitor force-stop ## end of DisableSomeDefaultServices.sh Before running |Ozone for the optimized Windows Server 2012 configuration, run the following batch script. In particular, the OS power profile is set to High performance and the desktop GUI is configured for high performance. CommandsNoPersonaManagement.bat rem Note: script closely adapted from rem http: //mtellin.com/2010/09/13/creating-a-windows-7-template-for-vmware-view/ rem Version dated 2012-02-05 reg load "hku\temp" "SUSERPROFILE%\..\Default User\NTUSER.DAT" reg ADD "hku\temp\Software\ Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Control Panel\Desktop" /v SCRNSAVE.EXE /d "Swindir%\system32\scrnsave.scr" /f reg ADD "hku\temp\Software\ Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Control Panel\Desktop" /v ScreenSaveTimeOut /d "600" /f reg ADD "hku\temp\Software\ Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Control Panel\Desktop" /v ScreenSaverIsSecure /d "1" /f Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 17 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 cut -cl-16, 17-24, 25-32, 33-40, 41-49, 40-58, 59-66, 67-74, 75-82, 83-91, 92-100, 101- 109,110-118,119-126,127-135 --output-delimiter="_" ## end of fix-iozone-fields script Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 20 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 APPENDIX C — DETAILED RESULTS CHARTS Figures 7 through 22 chart our |Ozone test results, for each OS configuration (out-of-the-box and optimized), file system (ext4, XFS, NTFS, and ReFS) and file access method (in-cache, direct I/O, and out-of-cache). The charts present the average file system performance in KB/s over the 13 |Ozone subtests, plotted for file size from 1,024 KB to 2,097,152 KB and record lengths from 8 KB to 1,024 KB. Note that there are no charts for the out-of-cache method, because by design it returns only two data points per test. For numerical data corresponding to each chart, see Appendix D. Figure 6 summarizes the results of the |Ozone tests. | | Out-of-box | Optimized | Out-of-box | Optimized | Out-of-box | Optimized | In cache 3,960,760 5,922,869 2,398,335 4,439,896 65.2% 33.4% Out of cache 559,697 744,479 521,545 650,378 7.3% 14.5% Direct 1/0 926,035 1,239,414 819,452 1,059,987 13.0% 16.9% In cache 2,989,641 6,483,552 2,266,253 4,368,132 31.9% 48.4% Out of cache 579,830 771,406 549,629 676,553 5.5% 14.0% Direct 1/0 863,509 1,216,965 808,590 1,055,955 6.8% 15.3% Figure 6: lOzone results for the four file systems in KB/s. Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 21 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 In cache charts ext4 In cache, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 out-of-box - ext4 a 110,000,000 é 49,000,000-10,000,000 w 10,000, Se ® 9,000,000 a 448,000,000-9,000,000 = 3000000 _ a 147,000,000-8,000,000 g 7,000,000 46,000,000-7,000,000 = 6,000,000 wee “4 @5,000,000-6,000,000 § 5,000,000 14 4,000,000-5,000,000 % 4,000,000 = 3.000.000 1 3,000,000-4,000,000 = 3,000, & 2,000,000 @2,000,000-3,000,000 3 1,000,000 512 1,000,000-2,000,000 < 0 1@0-1,000,000 x Seeen8 - eS a RS = Bg gq Recordlength (kB) Sage 3a Rag § File size (KB) “oa Figure 7: Average lOzone performance in KB/s for ext4 file system on out-of-box Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 platform with the in-cache method. In cache, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 optimized - ext4 oT 15 9,000,000-10,000,000 g conoae | = 8,000,000-9,000,000 = 3.000.000 '= 7,000,000-8,000,000 $ 7,000,000 15 6,000,000-7,000,000 @ 6,000,000 1= 5,000,000-6,000,000 5,000,000 = 4,000,000-5,000,000 g enoey 1 3,000,000-4,000,000 = 2,000,000 '= 2,000,000-3,000,000 & 1,000,000 512 1,000,000-2,000,000 < os z ™0-1,000,000 8 BS: aN Sg a g # Ss ee4 5 necord length (KB) tsaqggaaa “38 8 File size (KB) “oat Figure 8: Average lOzone performance in KB/s for ext4 file system on optimized Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 platform with the in-cache method. Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 22 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 ReFS In cache, Microsoft Windows Server 2012 out-of-box - ReFS 4 9,000,000- 10,000,000 10,000,000 cS 4 8,000,000-9,000,000 2 eens 14 7,000,000-8,000,000 = ,000,000-8,000, a 8,000,000 & 7,000,000 1 6,000,000-7,000,000 g 6,000,000 14 5,000,000-6,000,000 & 5,000,000 §@ 4,000,000-5,000,000 o aoon.ano t@ 3,000,000-4,000,000 : ree § 2,000,000-3,000,000 g ‘ @ 1,000,000-2,000,000 < 1,000,000 om §@0-1,000,000 g S828 a Ree Tae Rk BE gg wee 8 Record length (KB) Saye Sa8 h 8 “S83 ¢8 & a 8 5 File size (KB) mw oa Figure 13: Average lOzone performance in KB/s for ReFS file system on out-of-box Microsoft Windows Server 2012 with the in-cache method. In cache, Microsoft Windows Server 2012 optimized - ReFS 4 9,000,000-10,000,000 s 8,000,000-9,000,000 g 147,000,000-8,000,000 3 4 6,000,000-7,000,000 3 1#5,000,000-6,000,000 : 1 4,000,000-5,000,000 g 143,000,000-4,000,000 = §#2,000,000-3,000,000 g 1#1,000,000-2,000,000 é 190-1,000,000 Seg Fagg 8 £3 8S gi go & © Recordlength (ks) File size (KB) 8 Figure 14: Average lOzone performance in KB/s for ReFS file system on optimized Microsoft Windows Server 2012 with the in-cache method. Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 25 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 Direct I/O charts ext4 Direct I/O, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 out-of-box - ext4 t@ 4,500,000-5,000,000 «4 4,000,000-4,500,000 B 1 3,500,000-4,000,000 g i 3,000,000-3,500,000 : i@ 2,500,000-3,000,000 t 1 2,000,000-2,500,000 3 = @ 1,500,000-2,000,000 2 § 512 @ 1,000,000-1,500,000 = 0 9 500,000-1,000,000 64 3 g a 3 ae ™@0-500,000 v3 3 5 8 § = g eo L 8 Recordiength ks) s» 8a 2 & 4 “5 a 8 5 File size (KB) a 8 Figure 15: Average lOzone performance in KB/s for ext4 file system on out-of-box Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 platform with the direct I/O method. Direct I/O, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 optimized - ext4 1a 4,500,000-5,000,000 4 4,000,000-4,500,000 ‘@ 3,500,000-4,000,000 1 3,000,000-3,500,000 '@ 2,500,000-3,000,000 '@ 2,000,000-2,500,000 @ 1,500,000-2,000,000 ia 1,000,000- 1,500,000 1@ 500,000-1,000,000 Average file system I/O rate in KB/s s + a r] 0-500,000 $g8 288 eR 8 . oS R 5 F Bw Se Bs 2 5 B S gw Recordiength (ks) “82 s¢2 a a2 5 Sal a File size (KB) Figure 16: Average lOzone performance in KB/s for ext4 file system on optimized Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 platform with the direct I/O method. Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 26 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 NTFS Direct I/O, Microsoft Windows Server 2012 out-of-box - NTFS w_5-000,000 §w 4,500,000-5,000,000 é 4,000,000 4 4,000,000-4,500,000 = oan 1% 3,500,000-4,000,000 Ee eae505 3,000,000-3,500,000 4 3,000,000-3,500, 2 3,000,000 E 2,500,000 1% 2,500,000-3,000,000 5 % 2,000,000 s@ 2,000,000-2,500,000 a, Boao 1 1,500,000-2,000,000 $ ae 512 #4,000,000-1,500,000 g “0 128 1 500,000-1,000,000 s 2 0 1@0-500,000 4 8 8 2 2 8 g@ 8 ¢ ge Cf 8 Record length (KB) “8 g 338 8 8 “8 segs 3 4 8 8 8 5 2 8 File size (KB) a 8 Figure 17: Average lOzone performance in KB/s for NTFS file system on out-of-box Microsoft Windows Server 2012 with the direct |/O method. Direct 1/O, Microsoft Windows Server 2012 optimized - NTFS 14 4,500,000-5,000,000 2 14 4,000,000-4,500,000 g : 14 3,500,000-4,000,000 2 14 3,000,000-3,500,000 9 g §#2,500,000-3,000,000 i §#2,000,000-2,500,000 5 §@ 1,500,000-2,000,000 5 # 1,000,000- 1,500,000 5 128 1 500,000-1,000,000 g 32 ds 1 0-500,000 388 8% eo ag 3 g oq _ Recordlength (KB) oog ea “8 ga 8 § = 3 File size (KB) Figure 18: Average lOzone performance in KB/s for NTFS file system on optimized Microsoft Windows Server 2012 with the direct |/O method. Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 A Principled Technologies test report 27 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 APPENDIX D — DETAILED IOZONE RESULTS Figures 23 through 28 capture the data points collected during testing with the Ozone benchmark. In-cache Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 results Average file system I/O performance (KB/s): Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 — ext4 — out-of-box configuration Record length (KB) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 1,024 | 2,619,762 | 2,828,500 | 3,061,296 | 3,207,799 | 3,128,748 | 2,787,878 | 2,822,700 | 2,897,544 2,048 | 2,698,331 | 2,862,802 | 3,100,792 | 3,238,848 | 3,171,723 | 2,937,001 | 2,821,115 | 2,898,712 4,096 | 2,730,762 | 2,885,804 | 3,128,024 | 3,232,655 | 3,149,631 | 2,972,046 | 2,845,601 | 2,866,031 8,192 | 2,739,718 | 2,897,161 | 3,130,041 | 3,415,342 | 3,710,231 | 3,461,805 | 3,336,918 | 3,357,995 s 16,384 | 3,103,121 | 3,869,641 | 4,313,797 | 4,502,324 | 4,398,668 | 4,226,442 | 4,821,675 | 4,757,327 @ 32,768 | 3,632,684 | 4,360,500 | 4,826,727 | 5,011,028 | 5,379,169 | 5,122,433 | 5,141,835 | 5,309,518 4 65,536 | 4,596,942 | 4,891,813 | 5,217,628 | 5,400,382 | 5,439,456 | 5,128,773 | 5,189,895 | 5,257,075 ir 131,072 | 4,385,187 | 4,776,719 | 4,953,052 | 5,142,409 | 5,134,675 | 4,855,048 | 5,009,551 | 4,803,365 262,144 | 4,197,005 | 4,453,046 | 4,739,684 | 4,839,205 | 4,917,040 | 4,654,740 | 4,854,185 | 4,742,712 524,288 | 3,441,483 | 4,128,749 | 3,757,878 | 3,397,205 | 3,947,152 | 4,079,656 | 4,994,734 | 4,010,619 1,048,576 | 3,927,547 | 4,485,150 | 4,920,417 | 4,882,219 | 4,623,857 | 4,698,165 | 5,029,317 | 4,872,815 2,097,152 | 4,106,970 | 3,033,503 | 3,934,227 | 4,680,614 | 4,592,325 | 4,121,093 | 4,238,161 | 4,409,589 Average file system I/O performance (KB/s): Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 - ext4 — optimized configuration Record length (KB) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 1,024 | 6,073,374 | 6,896,276 | 7,397,456 | 7,904,428 | 7,968,753 | 7,052,057 | 7,190,163 | 7,418,309 2,048 | 6,503,104 | 6,995,450 | 7,644,887 | 8,045,070 | 8,094,666 | 7,474,658 | 7,161,534 | 7,320,373 4,096 | 6,629,261 | 7,150,700 | 7,732,236 | 8,138,114 | 7,997,665 | 7,514,423 | 7,183,217 | 7,255,492 8,192 | 6,683,646 | 7,200,623 | 7,817,523 | 8,210,626 | 8,072,850 | 7,475,986 | 7,180,105 | 7,236,401 e 16,384 | 6,450,105 | 7,000,206 | 7,544,456 | 7,973,507 | 5,193,125 | 7,198,868 | 6,888,356 | 6,839,669 @ 32,768 | 4,724,013 | 5,049,240 | 5,363,476 | 5,547,585 | 5,596,335 | 5,279,246 | 5,314,708 | 5,361,939 % 65,536 | 4,589,370 | 4,926,612 | 5,249,255 | 5,455,440 | 5,490,065 | 5,172,193 | 5,228,551 | 5,282,607 ira 131,072 | 4,581,152 | 4,918,813 | 5,242,274 | 5,451,704 | 5,491,907 | 5,176,980 | 5,231,268 | 5,294,819 262,144 | 4,571,507 | 4,913,780 | 5,255,550 | 5,458,953 | 5,504,495 | 5,184,406 | 5,245,380 | 5,299,500 524,288 | 4,557,504 | 4,898,999 | 5,248,440 | 5,455,295 | 5,499,620 | 5,188,866 | 5,245,817 | 5,306,438 1,048,576 | 4,553,319 | 4,893,819 | 5,224,688 | 5,437,099 | 5,469,821 | 5,151,737 | 5,226,456 | 5,284,514 2,097,152 | 3,634,278 | 4,777,427 | 5,117,580 | 5,208,561 | 5,202,037 | 4,934,506 | 5,009,920 | 4,405,195 Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 A Principled Technologies test report 30 Average file system I/O performance (KB/s): Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 - XFS — out-of-box configuration Record length (KB) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 1,024 | 2,627,659 | 2,936,059 | 3,254,553 | 3,444,610 | 3,413,419 | 3,003,990 | 3,043,737 | 3,157,848 2,048 | 2,709,552 | 2,972,268 | 3,346,193 | 3,511,552 | 3,498,245 | 3,220,588 | 3,078,921 | 3,127,877 4,096 | 2,750,699 | 3,030,390 | 3,353,917 | 3,561,134 | 3,383,927 | 3,218,069 | 3,079,086 | 3,142,354 8,192 | 2,698,471 | 3,047,803 | 3,388,898 | 3,598,899 | 3,484,056 | 3,262,918 | 3,061,449 | 3,121,469 s 16,384 | 2,661,040 | 2,909,820 | 3,248,815 | 3,442,828 | 3,348,330 | 3,137,687 | 3,001,235 | 3,008,405 @ 32,768 | 2,288,959 | 2,466,991 | 2,704,208 | 2,860,963 | 2,842,894 | 2,654,385 | 2,625,703 | 2,636,593 % 65,536 | 2,242,591 | 2,427,365 | 2,658,211 | 2,803,888 | 2,803,830 | 2,610,480 | 2,589,380 | 2,607,665 iz 131,072 | 2,239,860 | 2,424,445 | 2,656,170 | 2,800,800 | 2,803,657 | 2,615,297 | 2,585,633 | 2,610,245 262,144 | 2,315,301 | 2,537,703 | 2,693,113 | 2,863,735 | 2,870,235 | 2,615,171 | 2,722,824 | 2,656,997 524,288 | 2,500,321 | 3,162,553 | 2,958,214 | 3,589,496 | 3,070,618 | 2,861,692 | 2,926,368 | 2,947,608 1,048,576 | 2,798,731 | 2,981,478 | 3,216,591 | 3,414,653 | 3,463,802 | 3,250,106 | 3,154,138 | 3,179,515 2,097,152 | 3,054,072 | 3,340,430 | 3,928,311 | 3,908,645 | 4,526,866 | 3,825,152 | 3,615,879 | 3,819,350 Average file system I/O performance (KB/s): Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 - XFS — optimized configuration Record length (KB) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 1,024 | 6,894,229 | 7,609,383 | 8,346,590 | 8,872,680 | 8,783,139 | 7,777,137 | 7,747,713 | 8,231,003 2,048 | 7,277,527 | 7,951,180 | 8,557,760 | 9,004,370 | 8,936,395 | 8,232,754 | 7,769,691 | 7,940,687 4,096 | 7,399,519 | 7,975,630 | 8,695,637 | 9,120,771 | 8,857,964 | 8,338,569 | 7,904,207 | 7,943,757 8,192 | 7,454,552 | 8,029,826 | 8,736,633 | 9,219,883 | 8,938,565 | 8,328,083 | 7,909,026 | 7,958,571 s 16,384 | 7,042,377 | 7,703,105 | 8,361,397 | 8,821,951 | 8,568,075 | 7,935,632 | 7,493,623 | 7,468,151 oO 32,768 | 5,075,499 | 5,417,237 | 5,810,705 | 6,045,661 | 6,057,365 | 5,712,798 | 5,731,216 | 5,775,387 % 65,536 | 4,925,375 | 5,292,720 | 5,664,180 | 5,909,181 | 5,937,802 | 5,584,044 | 5,646,050 | 5,696,398 = 131,072 | 4,917,198 | 5,289,875 | 5,651,045 | 5,904,577 | 5,936,561 | 5,597,569 | 5,652,272 | 5,713,380 262,144 | 4,914,918 | 5,214,477 | 5,663,164 | 5,921,750 | 5,958,738 | 5,605,623 | 5,658,736 | 5,720,996 524,288 | 4,891,890 | 5,269,059 | 5,661,248 | 5,907,899 | 5,961,106 | 5,606,512 | 5,665,272 | 5,725,882 1,048,576 | 4,883,221 | 5,275,948 | 5,664,587 | 5,923,288 | 5,963,645 | 5,620,081 | 5,673,507 | 5,722,399 2,097,152 | 4,750,906 | 5,182,162 | 5,551,678 | 5,720,931 | 5,765,372 | 5,493,944 | 4,523,860 | 3,826,407 Figure 23: In-cache method Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 results. Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 A Principled Technologies test report 31 In-cache Microsoft Windows Server 2012 results Average file system I/O performance (KB/s): Microsoft Windows Server 2012 — NTFS — out-of-box configuration Record length (KB) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 1,024 | 1,792,852 | 2,354,955 | 2,981,094 | 3,447,458 | 3,536,929 | 2,958,171 | 3,021,619 | 3,062,131 2,048 | 1,842,779 | 2,450,274 | 3,184,000 | 3,695,163 | 3,771,697 | 3,183,312 | 3,227,021 | 3,256,319 4,096 | 1,346,225 | 1,754,812 | 2,214,080 | 2,499,250 | 2,479,837 | 2,425,935 | 2,472,293 | 2,505,025 8,192 | 1,268,611 | 1,671,353 | 2,117,366 | 2,438,720 | 2,446,231 | 2,227,608 | 2,406,767 | 2,426,854 s 16,384 | 1,242,113 | 1,673,161 | 2,198,855 | 2,548,347 | 2,523,447 | 2,304,258 | 2,255,173 |_ 2,313,931 @ 32,768 | 1,168,710 | 1,615,827 | 2,089,637 | 2,417,658 | 2,391,101 | 2,167,542 | 2,241,967 | 2,399,971 % 65,536 | 1,545,389 | 2,167,507 | 2,646,514 | 3,102,498 | 2,058,172 | 2,051,566 | 2,272,435 | 2,478,700 irs 131,072 | 1,618,121 | 2,441,753 | 2,063,013 | 2,375,385 | 2,529,313 | 2,380,312 | 2,541,489 | 2,688,524 262,144 | 2,070,968 | 2,119,190 | 2,969,178 | 2,260,377 | 2,335,837 | 2,397,729 | 2,307,477 | 2,592,580 524,288 | 1,810,489 | 2,305,142 | 2,278,021 | 2,562,890 | 2,475,048 | 2,371,557 | 2,406,965 | 2,531,501 1,048,576 | 1,930,289 | 2,375,990 | 2,792,338 | 2,815,162 | 3,078,204 | 2,634,531 | 3,025,452 | 2,889,683 2,097,152 | 2,028,950 | 2,612,304 | 3,064,705 | 3,273,432 | 3,372,390 | 3,105,508 | 3,213,169 | 3,215,387 Average file system |, /O performance (KB/s): Microsoft Windows Server 2012 — NTI FS — optimized configuration Record length (KB) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 File size (KB) 1,024 4,013,978 5,228,365 6,680,711 7,813,329 7,809,804 6,634,143 6,599,714 6,833,208 2,048 4,144,652 5,463,969 7,114,097 8,250,300 8,435,165 7,011,427 7,290,795 7,311,346 4,096 3,149,342 4,079,471 5,153,366 5,745,386 5,639,907 5,473,348 5,517,584 5,705,861 8,192 3,019,841 3,912,891 4,852,373 5,687,295 5,680,765 5,154,998 5,571,796 5,634,339 16,384 2,985,830 3,816,097 4,860,598 5,585,904 5,555,485 5,099,543 5,147,158 5,463,707 32,768 2,697,343 3,458,159 4,204,594 4,653,113 4,617,798 4,262,031 4,336,031 4,377,437 65,536 2,624,745 3,335,759 4,046,737 4,534,647 4,482,453 4,139,708 4,164,708 4,268,033 131,072 2,625,858 3,384,025 4,080,052 4,506,935 4,439,377 4,101,846 4,161,069 4,222,094 262,144 2,610,544 3,344,412 4,017,496 4,437,431 4,387,247 4,050,821 4,106,030 4,189,896 524,288 2,595,568 3,329,041 4,007,432 4,254,092 4,336,243 3,982,758 4,027,647 4,099,736 1,048,576 2,532,669 3,272,645 3,935,451 4,267,727 4,230,736 3,912,158 3,957,748 4,023,183 2,097,152 2,505,945 3,214,715 3,902,259 4,237,436 4,197,059 3,888,013 3,950,374 4,032,872 Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 A Principled Technologies test report 32 Average file system I/O performance (KB/s): Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 - XFS — out-of-box configuration Record length (KB) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 1,024 | 297,572 | 443,851 | 621,686 804,952 983,510 | 1,043,346 | 1,236,789 | 1,305,144 2,048 | 324,243 | 497,000 | 781,162 1,060,978 1,320,791 | 1,499,064 | 1,827,558 | 2,054,685 4,096 | 333,629 | 523,417 | 775,580 1,066,819 1,329,289 | 1,536,497 | 1,837,075 | 2,017,721 8,192 | 337,490 | 531,471 | 778,183 1,029,061 1,283,311 | 1,457,068 | 1,715,793 | 2,035,906 es 16,384 | 335,021 | 520,586 | 778,627 1,047,575 1,248,427 | 1,456,366 | 1,734,406 | 1,933,290 @ 32,768 | 315,704 | 490,711 | 722,245 987,800 1,236,593 | 1,396,170 | 1,701,550 | 1,867,836 % 65,536 | 316,671 | 488,577 | 717,165 985,036 1,259,701 | 1,416,900 | 1,706,121 | 1,871,512 ir 131,072 | 313,346 | 490,238 | 719,482 984,852 1,238,464 | 1,426,515 | 1,697,750 | 1,879,887 262,144 | 316,560 | 486,377 | 715,455 984,381 1,239,295 | 1,406,531 | 1,733,257 | 1,887,488 524,288 | 333,040 | 459,990 | 704,551 990,562 1,252,749 | 1,435,866 | 1,819,163 | 2,114,392 1,048,576 | 170,661 | 284,267 | 436,810 589,454 811,367 983,013 | 1,213,340 | 1,365,008 2,097,152 | 176,170 | 261,591 | 365,718 499,179 630,555 | 795,465 | 938,309 | 1,135,592 Average file system I/O performance (KB/s): Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 — XFS — optimized configuration Record length (KB) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 1,024 | 523,597 | 741,828 | 1,019,974 | 1,324,163 1,514,435 | 1,673,705 | 2,031,968 | 2,169,995 2,048 | 532,136 | 858,443 | 1,196,265 | 1,573,582 1,801,637 | 2,227,982 | 2,551,991 | 2,886,363 4,096 | 554,385 | 859,868 | 1,206,310 | 1,574,859 1,790,510 | 2,212,476 | 2,535,887 | 2,829,449 8,192 | 544,130 | 882,053 | 1,202,326 | 1,511,574 1,736,514 | 2,066,139 | 2,396,988 | 2,801,815 s 16,384 | 538,799 | 843,325 | 1,181,721 | 1,514,548 1,670,690 | 2,037,496 | 2,345,647 | 2,570,246 @ 32,768 | 492,551 | 758,964 | 1,050,546 | 1,428,162 1,557,322 | 1,885,119 | 2,248,079 | 2,482,157 4 65,536 | 491,219 | 765,444 | 1,058,314 | 1,385,047 1,552,793 | 1,898,583 | 2,249,211 | 2,492,487 ir 131,072 | 487,699 | 768,539 | 1,051,368 | 1,380,174 1,570,429 | 1,929,290 | 2,272,498 | 2,505,801 262,144 | 492,711 | 763,075 | 1,053,547 | 1,382,992 1,563,211 | 1,920,697 | 2,282,693 | 2,515,937 524,288 | 456,611 | 715,725 | 1,007,396 | 1,359,533 1,545,452 | 1,897,716 | 2,237,353 | 2,481,974 1,048,576 | 233,930 | 388,366 560,862 770,253 976,167 | 1,246,239 | 1,530,283 | 1,744,789 2,097,152 | 214,568 | 305,861 420,702 607,307 723,774 906,042 | 1,085,448 | 1,387,700 Figure 25: Direct |/O method Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4 results. Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 A Principled Technologies test report 35 Direct I/O Microsoft Windows Server 2012 results Average file system I/O performance (KB/s): Microsoft Windows Server 2012 — NTFS — out-of-box configuration Record length (KB) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 1,024 | 276,288 | 441,252 678,156 936,186 | 1,222,384 | 1,515,347 | 1,798,947 | 1,909,831 2,048 | 276,693 | 466,296 691,059 | 1,022,902 | 1,199,358 | 1,457,823 | 1,866,210 | 2,022,013 4,096 | 272,239 | 440,326 677,297 935,543 | 1,192,575 | 1,384,978 | 1,635,426 | 1,962,086 8,192 | 269,210 | 438,605 684,327 970,793 | 1,202,397 | 1,355,045 | 1,715,860 | 1,852,850 s 16,384 | 263,100 | 435,695 684,075 980,123 | 1,229,111 | 1,407,840 | 1,737,505 | 1,896,309 @ 32,768 | 260,306 | 430,001 673,889 964,991 | 1,206,701 | 1,377,124 | 1,691,041 | 1,886,161 % 65,536 | 261,906 | 428,231 666,286 964,218 | 1,219,926 | 1,414,257 | 1,672,998 | 1,858,324 ira 131,072 | 261,906 | 424,679 645,177 943,261 | 1,223,837 | 1,405,536 | 1,675,125 | 1,893,991 262,144 | 258,288 | 425,549 666,615 942,164 | 1,202,082 | 1,408,648 | 1,669,008 | 1,891,638 524,288 | 250,654 | 411,668 651,381 926,209 | 1,166,623 | 1,372,986 | 1,653,065 | 1,901,663 1,048,576 | 149,495 | 266,617 444,799 558,295 786,562 961,391 | 1,162,407 | 1,390,765 2,097,152 | 145,893 | 240,476 358,428 495,351 620,160 761,675 905,924 | 1,143,149 Average file system I/O performance (KB/s): Microsoft Windows Server 2012 — NTFS — optimized configuration Record length (KB) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 1,024 | 349,953 | 651,783 995,906 | 1,397,945 | 1,659,039 | 1,913,797 | 2,377,858 | 2,560,442 2,048 | 421,368 | 659,214 | 1,013,569 | 1,436,138 | 1,697,316 | 1,914,048 | 2,341,796 | 2,629,932 4,096 | 381,388 | 611,374 946,430 | 1,336,194 | 1,578,389 | 1,800,171 | 2,256,750 | 2,615,014 8,192 | 374,295 | 600,017 941,405 | 1,337,318 | 1,546,548 | 1,733,721 | 2,127,916 | 2,491,649 s 16,384 | 373,142 | 582,238 933,209 | 1,323,566 | 1,537,561] 1,767,638 | 2,181,887 | 2,493,111 @ 32,768 | 363,049 | 573,944 906,573 | 1,287,246 | 1,503,494 | 1,744,594 | 2,100,920 | 2,484,519 4 65,536 | 359,778 | 571,271 897,188 | 1,284,528 | 1,480,576 | 1,737,931 | 2,118,526 | 2,397,833 ic 131,072 | 361,594 | 579,904 897,403 | 1,284,197 | 1,463,411 | 1,732,707 | 2,081,468 | 2,446,783 262,144 | 360,160 | 578,417 892,653 | 1,266,271 | 1,495,778 | 1,712,474 | 2,080,109 | 2,338,298 524,288 | 343,722 | 554,142 867,237 | 1,235,931 | 1,441,145 | 1,702,715 | 2,057,703 | 2,350,779 1,048,576 | 187,775 | 298,965 471,654 663,977 894,695 | 1,079,567 | 1,355,443 | 1,563,032 2,097,152 | 166,536 | 274,962 413,010 572,061 698,675 825,085 | 1,027,242 | 1,300,691 Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 A Principled Technologies test report 36 Average file system I/O performance (KB/s): Microsoft Windows Server 2012 — ReFS — out-of-box configuration Record length (KB) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 1,024 | 209,514 | 426,326 666,838 925,494 | 1,226,954 | 1,430,314 | 1,440,290 | 1,703,592 2,048 | 274,703 | 448,185 693,340 970,139 | 1,222,299 | 1,421,286 | 1,759,395 | 1,897,129 4,096 | 263,368 | 429,255 660,472 941,607 | 1,207,064 | 1,367,806 | 1,725,595 | 1,718,425 8,192 | 259,327 | 429,592 674,619 954,643 | 1,229,140 | 1,242,240 | 1,740,123 | 1,929,734 es 16,384 | 258,826 | 432,124 674,767 939,117 | 1,218,944 | 1,397,689 | 1,728,771 | 1,936,617 @ 32,768 | 256,448 | 426,168 656,506 943,885 | 1,220,790 | 1,331,269 | 1,708,987 | 1,914,894 % 65,536 | 255,340 | 421,090 657,092 938,963 | 1,202,033 | 1,389,892 | 1,664,757 | 1,914,887 ir 131,072 | 255,651 | 418,502 659,051 935,327 | 1,217,142 | 1,392,640 | 1,641,035 | 1,891,653 262,144 | 253,217 | 418,210 651,973 922,383 | 1,197,450 | 1,365,431 | 1,683,003 | 1,890,137 524,288 | 250,398 | 407,961 651,933 925,612 | 1,195,160 | 1,398,351 | 1,643,765 | 1,897,086 1,048,576 | 152,722 | 262,813 418,895 674,423 839,687 994,493 | 1,245,162 | 1,384,216 2,097,152 | 138,789 | 237,391 358,691 520,939 643,918 759,165 929,086 | 1,108,023 Average file system I/O performance (KB/s): Microsoft Windows Server 2012 — ReFS — optimized configuration Record length (KB) 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 1,024 | 330,471 | 647,213 925,074 | 1,317,549 | 1,592,241 | 1,826,885 | 2,250,366 | 2,438,461 2,048 | 389,642 | 627,799 974,108 | 1,383,614 | 1,650,396 | 1,897,493 | 2,355,999 | 2,606,508 4,096 | 367,363 | 591,464 919,987 | 1,298,302 | 1,540,514 | 1,757,227 | 2,213,922 | 2,616,761 8,192 | 361,822 | 588,261 919,173 | 1,288,611 | 1,546,544 | 1,810,322 | 2,221,230 | 2,601,961 s 16,384 | 360,490 | 589,415 923,005 | 1,310,923 | 1,528,314 | 1,805,429 | 2,190,521 | 2,574,976 @ 32,768 | 353,940 | 568,792 898,426 | 1,266,029 | 1,489,712 | 1,752,264 | 2,130,682 | 2,506,375 4 65,536 | 353,731 | 568,599 884,791 | 1,220,287 | 1,440,635 | 1,736,894 | 2,121,661 | 2,492,902 ir 131,072 | 355,377 | 572,177 892,710 | 1,225,717 | 1,445,815 | 1,756,305 | 2,129,223 | 2,495,431 262,144 | 355,004 | 570,684 891,902 | 1,226,504 | 1,444,683 | 1,743,874 | 2,127,976 | 2,486,843 524,288 | 338,826 | 547,214 877,468 | 1,213,881 | 1,416,684 | 1,733,293 | 2,104,887 | 2,365,806 1,048,576 | 189,087 | 321,397 517,879 831,242 941,110 | 1,135,437 | 1,434,280 | 1,617,478 2,097,152 | 166,051 | 272,257 413,470 591,304 701,791 835,329 | 1,036,080 | 1,241,613 Figure 26: Direct I/O method Microsoft Windows Server 2012 results. Comparing file system performance: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 vs. Microsoft Windows Server 2012 A Principled Technologies test report 37