ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

kapqa · Yesterday 16:30:10

Hello ,

pondering on install a new operating system
so i did a test to see how the 120 GB sata SSD would fare;

it has the expected read speed 450-500 MB/s
however, the write speed is only abou 120 MB/s with ext4 fileformat;

if with gparted would format the disk instead with NTFS, the write speed would be more in line with capabilities probably of around 400 MB/s.

now my question: is this a fault with Devuan/Debian that it is so slow , or what could i do about it?

when i use gparted, the options iam getting is exfat - ext2/3/4 - fat16/32 - ntfs - minix - lvm2 - linux-small

it is my understanding, that the Debian/Devuan is using by standard the ext4 fileformat;

thank you for the help and eventual insight.

EDIT: sorry, i forgot, the Devuan itself lies as encrypted install (LVM automaitcaly install with encryption for beginner) on a 120GB Sata3 SSD , but the tested Sata SSD is also internal and has no data, pristinely formatted inside Devuan.

Last edited by kapqa (Yesterday 16:32:42)

Mercury · Yesterday 16:45:05

it has the expected read speed 450-500 MB/s
however, the write speed is only abou 120 MB/s with ext4 fileformat;

How are you running these tests? The method may be giving skewed results, and/or there may be a bottleneck elsewhere than at the drive.

kapqa · Yesterday 17:41:20

with the tool kdiskmark, do you think id would prefer ntfs?

Last edited by kapqa (Yesterday 17:41:55)

Camtaf · Yesterday 18:12:14

I use a lot of 128GB SSD (ext4) on my computers/laptops, I don't find them to be slow, but I'm just a regular user; usual things, internet, music, videos, spreadsheet, etc.

Last edited by Camtaf (Yesterday 18:14:03)

Mercury · Yesterday 18:25:19

with the tool kdiskmark, do you think id would prefer ntfs?

It's very unlikely that the filesystem is the culprit, though if you want to try ntfs as an experiment there's no harm.

What is the model of the drive? We may find the manufacturer's rated read and write speeds and see how far off your results are.

delgado · Yesterday 21:44:15

"EDIT" in post #1 is the explanation.

"encrypted" has to be slower (and LVM makes it worse). How much depends on the encryption method andcomputer hardware.
Encrypted zeros are no longer zeros, except the encryption sucks.

Or in short: No, you're doing it wrong.

Devarch · Yesterday 21:50:39

1. The best ssd accelerator for Linux:
https://github.com/firelzrd/adios

2.

encrypted install

If it's not AES then it's too slow.

greenjeans · Today 01:58:25

Wait, you guys are getting 120 mbps write speed? dayum....almost makes me want to try an SSD.

steve_v · Today 07:20:24

greenjeans wrote:

Wait, you guys are getting 120 mbps write speed?

Eh? I get ~900MiB/s read/write over the network to my NAS (network limited), and that's mostly 10+ year old gear. Local root filesystem is 3.5GiB/s read, 1.6GiB/s write (real workloads as opposed to the silly marketing numbers, and yes, it's ext4), and that's pretty much the cheapest DRAM-less flash (that wasn't complete trash) I could find at the time.

greenjeans wrote:

almost makes me want to try an SSD

"An SSD for the OS is the biggest upgrade you can make for interactive workloads" was a true 15 years ago. These days it's almost impossible to find a system that doesn't do that.
If you think "I still boot from a single bargain-basement mechanical drive from 2009" is some kind of brag (outside the vintage scene, and half of that is using flash these days anyway), you do you.

As for the OP, benchmark better. What you are testing is the throughput of encrypted LVM, not ext4. In that context CPU performance, memory bandwidth and choice of encryption algorithm will completely mask any differences in filesystem performance.

Devarch wrote:

The best ssd accelerator for Linux

Benchmark numbers or it didn't happen.
Fiddling with exotic schedulers is very workload dependent, and most modern SSD firmware does well enough for general-desktop use that the best choice is either none or deadline, with anything more complicated just adding overhead for no real benefit.

Last edited by steve_v (Today 08:00:53)

Devarch · Today 09:08:11

Benchmark numbers or it didn't happen.

You can do it on your own.
I got the effect.

Yes, the best. There are no concurrents

I like it, you can ignore it. It works. No overhead, just better I/O processing.

steve_v · Today 09:27:09

You can do it on your own.
I got the effect.

"Just take my word for it, it feels faster (totally not confirmation bias, trust me bro)".
FTFY.

Thanks, but no thanks. In my testing on low-latency RAID NVME the best i/o scheduler is consistently [none]. I run Gentoo not Arch, so my ricing is data-driven.

Devarch · Today 14:56:43

steve_v, I see all you need is to discuss for no reason, just because you like to discuss.

ADIOS is just Adaptive Deadline I/O Scheduler. It means that it`s scheduler, just another (better) scheduler. Not default linux scheduler but new better one. It is designed to optimize I/O operations in Linux by providing low latency through adaptive latency control and dynamic deadline adjustments based on past performance. It also effectively prioritizes requests and groups.

You are not forced to use it, OK?

I share here some of my foundings that are good, interesting or better than default. You can just note that is not for you.

Last edited by Devarch (Today 14:57:04)

steve_v · Today 15:03:51

I see all you need is to drop promotions for your "best" thing for no reason, just because you like to promote.

This thread had nothing to do with i/o schedulers, nobody asked which one is the best.
When told out of left-field that something is "The best" (without an "in my opinion"), asking for some proof isn't unreasonable.

Last edited by steve_v (Today 15:12:49)

Devarch · Today 15:40:12

I see all you need is to drop promotions for your "best" thing for no reason, just because you like to promote.
This thread had nothing to do with i/o schedulers, nobody asked which one is the best.
When told out of left-field that something is "The best" (without an "in my opinion"), asking for some proof isn't unreasonable.

You don`t want to get the idea:

I share here some of my foundings that are good, interesting or better than default. You can just note that is not for you.

I`M NOT A SELLER. You can use it or not, read the docs or not, test or not, I don`t care.

The officially official Devuan Forum!

#1 Yesterday 16:30:10

ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#2 Yesterday 16:45:05

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#3 Yesterday 17:41:20

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#4 Yesterday 18:12:14

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#5 Yesterday 18:25:19

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#6 Yesterday 21:44:15

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#7 Yesterday 21:50:39

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#8 Today 01:58:25

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#9 Today 07:20:24

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#10 Today 09:08:11

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#11 Today 09:27:09

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#12 Today 14:56:43

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#13 Today 15:03:51

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

#14 Today 15:40:12

Re: ext4 write slow on small 120gb sata SSD

Board footer