Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264379AbTEaRMQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2003 13:12:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264386AbTEaRMP (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2003 13:12:15 -0400 Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.49]:40415 "EHLO scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264379AbTEaRMO (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2003 13:12:14 -0400 Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 13:26:29 -0400 To: ak@suse.de Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BENCHMARKS] 2.5.70 for 4 filesystems Message-ID: <20030531172629.GA9458@rushmore> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i From: rwhron@earthlink.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > It's quite surprising that reiserfs is so slow at deletion. In my > normal experience reiserfs rm -rf is much faster than anything else > (e.g. with a big rm -rf on an ext2 you have a chance to ctrl-c still, > on reiserfs no such chance; XFS is really slow at this). Perhaps this > is some 2.5 regression? Do you have 2.4 comparison numbers? Maybe the other filesystems are just catching up :) My experience is reiserfs is amazingly fast at rm -rf. Here is bonnie++ small file benchmark on reiserfs with more kernels. A couple of notes. You see the number of files was reduced recently. Also the reiserfs notail option was removed based on a suggestion from Hans to benefit bigger file benchmarks. --------------- Sequential --------- ----- Create ----- ---- Delete ---- files /sec %CPU Eff /sec %CPU Eff 2.4.19-rmap13c 131072 3565 40.7 8766 2212 33.3 6635 2.4.20-jam2 131072 3702 43.3 8543 2148 31.3 6855 2.4.21-pre4-ac3 131072 3372 40.3 8360 2187 31.3 6980 2.4.21-pre4aa1 131072 3612 43.7 8273 2141 31.0 6905 2.5.68 131072 2935 37.3 7861 1787 25.7 6963 2.5.68-mm2 131072 3031 38.3 7906 1776 26.3 6743 2.5.68-mjb2 65536 7652 86.7 8830 4027 56.7 7105 2.5.69 65536 7884 90.3 8727 3244 45.7 7102 2.5.69-bk1 65536 7694 88.0 8743 3419 48.3 7073 2.5.69-mm5 65536 7585 87.0 8719 3538 50.3 7029 2.5.70 65536 7584 86.7 8751 2628 37.3 7038 2.5.69 was about 20% faster than 2.5.70 on sequential file deletes on reiserfs. I haven't benchmarked any 2.4 kernels with 65536 files and tails yet. -- Randy Hron http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html - 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/