2007-05-02 02:43:06

by lkml777

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?


On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:18:19 +0800 (CST), "Andrew Wang"
<[email protected]> said:
> ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
> good file system.

Yes, a very GOOD question, considering:

REISER4 - THE BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.

You can read more here:

<a href="http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm"
target="_blank">http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm</a>
<a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm"
target="_blank">http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm</a>

.-------------------------.
| FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK |
| TYPE |(secs)|USAGE|
.-------------------------.
|REISER4 lzo | 1938 | 278 |
|REISER4 gzip| 2295 | 213 |
.-------------------------.
|REISER4 | 3462 | 692 |
|EXT2 | 4092 | 816 |
|JFS | 4225 | 806 |
|EXT4 | 4408 | 816 |
|EXT3 | 4421 | 816 |
|XFS | 4625 | 779 |
|REISER3 | 6178 | 793 |
|FAT32 |12342 | 988 |
|NTFS-3g |10414 | 772 |
.-------------------------.


Column one measures the time taken to complete the bonnie++ benchmarking
test (run with the parameters bonnie++ -n128:128k:0). The top two
results use Reiser4 with compression. Since bonnie++ writes test files
which are almost all zeros, compression speeds things up dramatically.
That this is not the case in real world examples can be seen below where
compression does not speed things up. However, more importantly, it does
not slow things down either.

Column two, Disk Usage: measures the amount of disk used to store 655MB
of raw data (which was 3 different copies of the Linux kernel sources).

OR LOOK AT THE FULL RESULTS:

.-------------------------------------------------.
|File |Disk |Copy |Copy |Tar |Unzip| Del |
|System |Usage|655MB|655MB|Gzip |UnTar| 2.5 |
|Type | (MB)| (1) | (2) |655MB|655MB| Gig |
.-------------------------------------------------.
|REISER4 gzip | 213 | 148 | 68 | 83 | 48 | 70 |
|REISER4 lzo | 278 | 138 | 56 | 80 | 34 | 84 |
|REISER4 tails| 673 | 148 | 63 | 78 | 33 | 65 |
|REISER4 | 692 | 148 | 55 | 67 | 25 | 56 |
|NTFS3g | 772 |1333 |1426 | 585 | 767 | 194 |
|NTFS | 779 | 781 | 173 | X | X | X |
|REISER3 | 793 | 184 | 98 | 85 | 63 | 22 |
|XFS | 799 | 220 | 173 | 119 | 90 | 106 |
|JFS | 806 | 228 | 202 | 95 | 97 | 127 |
|EXT4 extents | 806 | 162 | 55 | 69 | 36 | 32 |
|EXT4 default | 816 | 174 | 70 | 74 | 42 | 50 |
|EXT3 | 816 | 182 | 74 | 73 | 43 | 51 |
|EXT2 | 816 | 201 | 82 | 73 | 39 | 67 |
|FAT32 | 988 | 253 | 158 | 118 | 81 | 95 |
.-------------------------------------------------.


Each test was preformed 5 times and the average value recorded.
Disk Usage: The amount of disk used to store the data (which was 3
different copies of the Linux kernel sources).
The raw data (without filesystem meta-data, block alignment wastage,
etc) was 655MB.
Copy 655MB (1): Copy the data over a partition boundary.
Copy 655MB (2): Copy the data within a partition.
Tar Gzip 655MB: Tar and Gzip the data.
Unzip UnTar 655MB: UnGzip and UnTar the data.
Del 2.5 Gig: Delete everything just written (about 2.5 Gig).

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/9/4
--

[email protected]

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different?


2007-05-02 18:07:10

by Jan Engelhardt

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?


On May 1 2007 19:43, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:18:19 +0800 (CST), "Andrew Wang"
><[email protected]> said:
>> ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
>> good file system.
>
>Yes, a very GOOD question, considering:
>
>REISER4 - THE BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.

shut it plz.



Jan
--