Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754446AbZF1JAB (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:00:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752228AbZF1I7t (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:59:49 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:56622 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752000AbZF1I7r (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:59:47 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:59:32 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Marco Stornelli Cc: tim.bird@am.sony.com, jamie@shareable.org, Linux Embedded , Linux Kernel , Linux FS Devel , Daniel Walker Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Pramfs: Persistent and protected ram filesystem Message-ID: <20090628085932.GA20169@elf.ucw.cz> References: <4a4254e2.09c5660a.109d.46f8@mx.google.com> <4A425907.2060105@gmail.com> <4A42649D.6080509@gmail.com> <20090624175943.GB6618@elf.ucw.cz> <2ea1731b0906242330t5f379322sdff9880788e9b181@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <2ea1731b0906242330t5f379322sdff9880788e9b181@mail.gmail.com> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2251 Lines: 47 > >> > Ah now the write protection is a "needed feature", in your previous > >> > comment you talked about why not use ext2/3....... > >> > > >> > Marco > >> > > >> > >> Just for your information I tried the same test with pc in a virtual machine with 32MB of RAM: > >> > >> Version 1.03e ? ? ? ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- > >> Machine ? Size:chnk K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP ?/sec %CP > >> hostname ? ? 15M:1k 14156 ?99 128779 100 92240 100 11669 100 166242 ?99 80058 ?82 > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? files ?/sec %CP ?/sec %CP ?/sec %CP ?/sec %CP ?/sec %CP ?/sec %CP > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4 ?2842 ?99 133506 104 45088 101 ?2787 ?99 79581 101 58212 102 > >> > >> These data are the proof of the importance of the environment, workload and so on when we talk > >> about benchmark. Your consideration are really superficial. > > > > Unfortunately, your numbers are meaningless. > > I don't think so. > > > (PCs should have cca 3GB/sec RAM transfer rates; and you demosstrated > > cca 166MB/sec read rate; disk is 80MB/sec, so that's too slow. If you > > want to prove your filesystem the filesystem is reasonably fast, > > compare it with ext2 on ramdisk.) > > > This is the point. I don't want compare it with ext2 from performance > point of view. This comparison makes no sense for me. I've done this > test to prove that if you change environment you can change in a > purposeful way the results. Yes, IOW you demonstrated that the numbers are machine-dependend and really meaningless. ext2 comparison would tell you how much pramfs sucks (or not). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.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/