Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:09:03 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) |
| |
On Thu, Jan 26 2006, Hans Reiser wrote: > Edward Shishkin wrote: > > > > > I guess this is because real compression is going in background > > flush, not in sys_write->write_cryptcompress (which just copies > > user's data to page cache). So in this case we have something > > very similar to ext2. Reiser4 plain write (write_unix_file) is > > more complex, and currently we try to reduce its sys time. > > > > Edward. > > > > > > > > > Which means that only real time is a meaningful measurement.....
Indeed. I guess the compression stuff cost is hard to quantify, since it has cache effects on the rest of the system in addition to costing CPU cycles on its own.
A profile of, say, dbench with and without compression would be interesting to see. And the actual dbench reults, naturally :-)
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |