Re: Journal FS Comparison on IOzone (was Netbench)

From: Brian (hiryuu@envisiongames.net)
Date: Mon Aug 27 2001 - 13:59:59 EST


On Monday 27 August 2001 02:24 pm, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> I am using a Linux 2.4.7 on a 4-way VA Linux system.
> It has 4 GB of RAM, but I have limited it to 256 MB in
> accordance with IOzone run rules.

I might have gone with a dual-proc, simply because they seem to be the
server config of choice around here, but that may not hold true for your
own needs.

> However, I suspect that this causes IOzone to measure disk
> subsystem or PCI bus performance more than it does FS performance.
> Any comments on this?

It gives you a mix of in-memory and on-disk operations. The on-disk work
is worth noting -- it tells you how well the FS handles/causes
fragmentation. FAT, WAFL, and Tux2, for instance, would probably do very
poorly on random reads, since they tend to have a lot of fragmentation.
WAFL and Tux2, on the other hand, should slaughter everyone on random
writes.

        -- Brian
-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 21:00:24 EST