Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:51:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:51:15 -0500 Received: from dns.toxicfilms.tv ([150.254.37.24]:50193 "EHLO dns.toxicfilms.tv") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:51:14 -0500 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:00:37 +0100 (CET) From: Maciej Soltysiak To: "Mike A. Harris" Cc: Con Kolivas , linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > compiling the kernel (or anything for that matter) isn't going to > show any difference really because the CPU Mhz and L1/L2 cache > are the bottleneck. How about a test comprising of lots of mail being sent/rejected/bounced/deferred/etc. Usually SMTPs like postfix store lots of directories and files in there. And thus create lots of reads/writes. We could measure the efficiency of that. I think it is possible to DoS a system by thrashing its i/o by forcing the smtp to do lots of work. With very poor io efficiency that is. Propably reiserfs would have better results with such a test, whereas ext3 could have better results on a differents test. (different application) I think the 'best result' fs will vary on the test. Also i think it is better to testdrive the file systems using real applications on high load. Regards, Maciej Soltysiak - 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/