lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest
Date
On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 6:29 am, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> wrote:
> >>compilation is not an effective benchmark anymore, not for Linux
> >>filesystems, they are all just too fast (or is it that the compilers are
> >>too slow?....)
> >
> >The point of this test is to measure interactions, and fairness.
> >
> >It answers the question "how much impact does heavy filesystem I/O have
> > upon other system activity?".
> >
> >The "other system activity" in this test is a kernel compile. That is a
> >fairly reasonable metric, because it is sensitive to latencies in
> > servicing reads and it is sensitive to inappropriate page replacement
> > decisions.
> >
> >A more appropriate foreground load might be opening a word processor and
> >composing a short letter to Aunt Nellie, but that's harder to automate.
> > We expect that reduced kernel compilation time will correlate with
> > lower-latency letter writing.
>
> I think the result of the test was that this was not a compelling reason
> for users selecting a particular one of the filesystems because they all
> did well enough at it. Perhaps because of your code.:)
>
> However, it is rather interesting for all the reasons you mention.
> There is indeed a tendency for benchmarks to discount the importance of
> latency, and this benchmark does not do that, which is good. It is
> annoying to be unable to work while a big tar is running in the
> background, but few benchmarks capture that.
>
> We should test reiser4 against this next month, it would be
> interesting. (It seems we finally fixed the Reiser4 performance problem
> that we hit in August, and now we just need to tweak the CPU usage a bit
> and we'll have something performing pretty decently in our next
> release....)

Actually the most "felt" of these loads is io_load and based on these results:
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2559ext3 3 109 68.8 4 10.1 1.40
2559jfs 3 138 54.3 11 13.8 1.77
2559reiser 3 98 76.5 2 9.2 1.24
2559xfs 3 124 60.5 6 8.0 1.57

I'd say barring any concern about throughput which this doesnt claim to
measure accurately reiserfs causes the least slowdown of the system ;-)

I do have one more load which may be useful. dbench_load continually runs
dbench in the background. I could throw that at it also.

Ext2 was left out for clarity because it wasn't a journalling fs but it's
results are quite different to the journalled fss.

Con
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans