lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest
I think it would be interesting to add ext2 in as well becouse a LOT of
people are still running ext2 and it would be nice to know how much
performance is being lost to gai the advantages of journaling.

David Lang

On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:

> Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 09:21:59 +1100
> From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
> To: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Zarochentcev <zam@namesys.com>
> Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest
>
> 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/
>
-
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    [W:0.042 / U:3.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site