Messages in this thread | | | From | Brian <> | Subject | Re: Journal FS Comparison on IOzone (was Netbench) | Date | Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:59:59 -0400 |
| |
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 writes.
-- Brian - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |