Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:10:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:10:14 -0500 Received: from sphinx.mythic-beasts.com ([195.82.107.246]:34063 "EHLO sphinx.mythic-beasts.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:10:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:09:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Matthew Kirkwood X-X-Sender: To: Andreas Dilger cc: Andi Kleen , Subject: Re: Filesystem benchmarks: ext2 vs ext3 vs jfs vs minix In-Reply-To: <20020327180247.GU21133@turbolinux.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 On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Andreas Dilger wrote: > If the I/O is normally sync driven, you should consider testing ext3 > with "data=journal". While this seems counterintuitive because it is > writing the data to disk twice, it can often be faster in real-world > "bursty" environments because the sync I/O goes to the journal in one > contiguous write, and it can then be written to the rest of the fs > asynchronously safely. Good point (and partially borne out by my new numbers). > You can also set up an external journal device so that the journal is > on another disk and avoid seeking between the journal and the rest of > the filesystem. Good idea. If I had only a disks - a slow one and a fast one, how should they be configured? (Or might this be another area worthy of testing? The tradeoffs can go both ways -- the slow disk might seem better for the async writes, but it'll also be worse at seeking, so perhaps might be more appropriate for the journal disk?) Matthew. - 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/