[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Journal FS Comparison on IOzone (was Netbench)
On Monday 27 August 2001 02:24 pm, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> I am using a Linux 2.4.7 on a 4-way VA Linux system.
> It has 4 GB of RAM, but I have limited it to 256 MB in
> accordance with IOzone run rules.

I might have gone with a dual-proc, simply because they seem to be the
server config of choice around here, but that may not hold true for your
own needs.

> However, I suspect that this causes IOzone to measure disk
> subsystem or PCI bus performance more than it does FS performance.
> Any comments on this?

It gives you a mix of in-memory and on-disk operations. The on-disk work
is worth noting -- it tells you how well the FS handles/causes
fragmentation. FAT, WAFL, and Tux2, for instance, would probably do very
poorly on random reads, since they tend to have a lot of fragmentation.
WAFL and Tux2, on the other hand, should slaughter everyone on random

-- Brian
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:58    [W:0.084 / U:3.064 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site