Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest
From: Hans Reiser (reiser@namesys.com)
Date: Fri Jan 31 2003 - 08:37:38 EST
- Next message: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Previous message: Dave Jones: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.59 morse code panics"
- In reply to: Con Kolivas: "[BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Next in thread: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Reply: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Reply: Andrew Morton: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
Be sure to create the tar on the same filesystem that you unpack it onto
--- readdir order affects performance.
A result that we are faster for writes and slower for reads for
workloads without large directories or small files is believable.
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?....)
I don't know what ioload does....
--
Hans
-
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/
- Next message: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Previous message: Dave Jones: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.59 morse code panics"
- In reply to: Con Kolivas: "[BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Next in thread: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Reply: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Reply: Andrew Morton: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Fri Jan 31 2003 - 22:00:25 EST