Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:35:38 -0400 | From | Robert Kiesling <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |