Re: A few filesystem benchmarks w/ReiserFS4 vs Other Filesystems

[Alexander Lyamin]

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?
> >   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.
-- 
"the liberation loophole will make it clear.."
lex lyamin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/