Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:17:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:17:26 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:46606 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:17:25 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:23:59 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Davidsen To: Hans Reiser cc: Steven Cole , Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton , Reiserfs developers mail-list Subject: Re: Results of using tar with 2.5.[60 63 62-mm3] and reiser[fs 4], ext3, xfs. In-Reply-To: <3E5E71EF.2030907@namesys.com> Message-ID: 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 Content-Length: 1133 Lines: 28 On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Hans Reiser wrote: > I would advise using a larger benchmark with 30-60 kernels being > copied. Filesystems sometimes perform differently for sync than for > memory pressure. Agreed, a benchmark suite gives a better view of overall performance. When ext3 came out I benchmarked it running a usenet news server. I configured it for one file per article and fed in about 100k articles with each one being offered multiple times to generate both rejects and accepts. I suppose I should do that again, it would give some insight into performance creating *lots* of files, many in the same directory. Needless to say for production use I configure a news server for least resources and the filesystem plays little part in the performance. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - 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/