Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:30:32 -0500 | From | Andrew Ho <> | Subject | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 |
| |
XFS is the best filesystem.
David Weinehall wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:33:13PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote: > > >>On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 09:34, Peter Nelson wrote: >> >> >>>Hans Reiser wrote: >>> >>>I'm confused as to why performing a benchmark out of cache as opposed to >>>on disk would hurt performance? >>> >>> >>My understanding (which could be completely wrong) is that reieserfs v3 >>and v4 are algorithmically more complex than ext2 or ext3. Reiserfs >>spends more CPU time to make the eventual ondisk operations more >>efficient/faster. >> >>When operating purely or mostly out of ram, the higher CPU utilization >>of reiserfs hurts performance compared to ext2 and ext3. >> >>When your system I/O utilization exceeds cache size and your disks >>starting getting busy, the CPU time previously invested by reiserfs pays >>big dividends and provides large performance gains versus more >>simplistic filesystems. >> >>In other words, the CPU penalty paid by reiserfs v3/v4 is more than made >>up for by the resultant more efficient disk operations. Reiserfs trades >>CPU for disk performance. >> >>In a nutshell, if you have more memory than you know what do to with, >>stick with ext3. If you spend all your time waiting for disk operations >>to complete, go with reiserfs. >> >> > >Or rather, if you have more memory than you know what to do with, use >ext3. If you have more CPU power than you know what to do with, use >ReiserFS[34]. > >On slower machines, I generally prefer a little slower I/O rather than >having the entire system sluggish because of higher CPU-usage. > > >Regards: David Weinehall > >
- 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/
| |