lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: A few filesystem benchmarks w/ReiserFS4 vs Other Filesystems
Alexander Lyamin wrote:

>Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 05:45:41PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>
>>>Execute rm -rf linux-2.6.8.1 on each file system.
>>># -------------------------------------------------------------------- #
>>>ext2 | 10.26 sec @ 22% cpu
>>>ext3 | 10.02 sec @ 25% cpu
>>> jfs | 26.67 sec @ 27% cpu
>>> rs3 | 03.22 sec @ 74% cpu
>>> rs4 | 25.58 sec @ 50% cpu <- What happened to reiserfs4 here?
>>> xfs | 12.51 sec @ 47% cpu
>>># -------------------------------------------------------------------- #
>>>Create a 500MB file with dd to each filesystem with 1MB blocks.
>>># -------------------------------------------------------------------- #
>>>ext2 | 15.72 sec @ 26% cpu
>>>ext3 | 17.04 sec @ 31% cpu
>>> jfs | 29.57 sec @ 25% cpu
>>> rs3 | 15.21 sec @ 27% cpu
>>> rs4 | 23.96 sec @ 23% cpu <- What happened to reiserfs4 here?
>>>
>>>
Do a dd of a 50GB file, I expect a completely different result.
Basically, this is an artifact of reiser4 choosing to flush the whole
file once it starts to flush.

>>> xfs | 19.07 sec @ 29% cpu
>>>
>>>
>
>Your answers somewhere in HCH's "silent semantics" thread.
>
>Basically reiserfs team aware that they do suck at file DELETES
>and OVERWRITES. There seem to be a way to rectify this perfomance
>issues in future (dynamic repacker?). Altough i was somewhat surprised
>with this dd file benchmark... probably Alexander Zarochentsev knows
>the answer.
>
>

-
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 14:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans