Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S263760AbTBAAKe>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:10:34 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S263794AbTBAAKe>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:10:34 -0500
Received: from [209.195.52.121] ([209.195.52.121]:45213 "HELO
	warden2b.diginsite.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id <S263760AbTBAAKd>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:10:33 -0500
From: David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>
To: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
Cc: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Zarochentcev <zam@namesys.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:19:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest
In-Reply-To: <200302010921.59861.conman@kolivas.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301311618230.17261-100000@dlang.diginsite.com>
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

I think it would be interesting to add ext2 in as well becouse a LOT of
people are still running ext2 and it would be nice to know how much
performance is being lost to gai the advantages of journaling.

David Lang

On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:

> Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 09:21:59 +1100
> From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
> To: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Zarochentcev <zam@namesys.com>
> Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest
>
> On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 6:29 am, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> wrote:
> > >>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?....)
> > >
> > >The point of this test is to measure interactions, and fairness.
> > >
> > >It answers the question "how much impact does heavy filesystem I/O have
> > > upon other system activity?".
> > >
> > >The "other system activity" in this test is a kernel compile.  That is a
> > >fairly reasonable metric, because it is sensitive to latencies in
> > > servicing reads and it is sensitive to inappropriate page replacement
> > > decisions.
> > >
> > >A more appropriate foreground load might be opening a word processor and
> > >composing a short letter to Aunt Nellie, but that's harder to automate.
> > > We expect that reduced kernel compilation time will correlate with
> > > lower-latency letter writing.
> >
> > I think the result of the test was that this was not a compelling reason
> > for users selecting a particular one of the filesystems because they all
> > did well enough at it.  Perhaps because of your code.:)
> >
> > However,  it is rather interesting for all the reasons you mention.
> > There is indeed a tendency for benchmarks to discount the importance of
> > latency, and this benchmark does not do that, which is good.  It is
> > annoying to be unable to work while a big tar is running in the
> > background, but few benchmarks capture that.
> >
> > We should test reiser4 against this next month, it would be
> > interesting.  (It seems we finally fixed the Reiser4 performance problem
> > that we hit in August, and now we just need to tweak the CPU usage a bit
> > and we'll have something performing pretty decently in our next
> > release....)
>
> Actually the most "felt" of these loads is io_load and based on these results:
> io_load:
> Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
> 2559ext3        3       109     68.8    4       10.1    1.40
> 2559jfs         3       138     54.3    11      13.8    1.77
> 2559reiser      3       98      76.5    2       9.2     1.24
> 2559xfs         3       124     60.5    6       8.0     1.57
>
> I'd say barring any concern about throughput which this doesnt claim to
> measure accurately reiserfs causes the least slowdown of the system  ;-)
>
> I do have one more load which may be useful. dbench_load continually runs
> dbench in the background. I could throw that at it also.
>
> Ext2 was left out for clarity because it wasn't a journalling fs but it's
> results are quite different to the journalled fss.
>
> Con
> -
> 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/
>
-
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/