lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Solaris tmpfs vs. Linux RAMdisk
Jim Nance wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 09:30:21AM -0400, Jim Nance wrote:
> > The ram disks under Linux have several limitations that probably make
> > them unsuitable for what you are trying to do. I believe that they were
> > designed primarily for OS installs from floppy disk. The Linux filesystems
> > do not do synchronous metadata writes and are therefor very fast. I do not
> > think you need to do anything special to get tmpfs like performance from ext2.
> > If you are going to put a large number of files into a directory, then there
> > is an experimental filesystem called reiserfs you might want to try. You can
> > get more information from:
>
> Dont you just love people who follow up their own posts :-)
>
> The original question is enough of an FAQ that I thought it would be good to
> have real numbers rather than just my assurances that Linux has a fast FS
> layer. Therefore I wrote a benchmarking program that creates/writes/destroys
> files and ran it under several operating systems and on several types of
> file systems. I have included that program as an attachment to this mail.
> Here are the results:
>
> OS Hardware FS Type Loops/Second
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Linux 2.2.5-ac6 1 nfs 16.33
> Linux 2.2.5-ac6 1 arla 73.67
> Linux 2.2.5-ac6 1 ext2 15383.32
> Solaris 2.6 2 afs 71.33
> Solaris 2.6 2 nfs 10.00
> Solaris 2.6 2 ufs 23.67
> Solaris 2.6 2 tmpfs 9162.32
> Digital Unix 4.0D 3 afs 49.33
> Digital Unix 4.0D 3 nfs 14.67
> Digital Unix 4.0D 3 ufs 28.67
> Digital Unix 4.0D 3 memfs 3062.66
> Linux 2.0.33 4 afs 69.33
> Linux 2.0.33 4 nfs 15.00
> Linux 2.0.33 4 ext2 2218.33
>
> Hardware:
> 1 -> 333 MHz PII, 512M ram, Compaq WDE4360W disk
> 2 -> Ultra450 class Sun server (300MHz?)
> 3 -> Personal Workstation 600 AU. 600 MHz alpha. 1.5G ram
> 4 -> 75 MHz Pentium, 32M ram, Segate ST31200N disk
>
> Notice how Linux writting to an ext2 file system is significantly faster
> than any other OS/FS combination. The next closest is Solaris writting
> to tmpfs, and its still far behind ext2. Its also good to notice how
> slow both Solaris and Digital Unix are on their local file systems. This
> is probably why both have a ram base file system.
>
> Please note that this benchmark is intended to measure the time it takes to
> create and delete files, which is expensive on most non-linux systems. It
> does not indicate anything about the data I/O rate to an existing file.
>
> If someone would like to put this table in an FAQ, please be my guest. Also
> if you have any criticisms, I would like those too. Also, I would like to
> know how NT does on this test if anyone has an NT system they can test it
> on.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim

Will do; I'm not going to get to excited about test suites and
speed tests, although I know it's hard to see your work go down the
tubes because an overpaid flack just said the opposite.

--
kiesling@ix.netcom.com
http://www.mainmatter.com/kiesling

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.086 / U:1.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site