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
Thanks for the feedback.
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, 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?
>>> 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
>
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.
>
>