Hi,
I re-ran some FFSB tests on ext3, ext4 and xfs filesystems, on a
2.6.22-rc5 kernel and with the latest ext4-git-tree (update of June 26).
The results are available here:
http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20070627/ffsb-write.html
Regards,
Val?rie
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 18:15 +0200, Valerie Clement wrote:
> Hi,
> I re-ran some FFSB tests on ext3, ext4 and xfs filesystems, on a
> 2.6.22-rc5 kernel and with the latest ext4-git-tree (update of June 26).
>
> The results are available here:
> http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20070627/ffsb-write.html
>
> Regards,
> Valérie
>
>
Thanks a lot Valerie!!
Hi!
IMHO this test is not 100% correct.
ext3 | data=writeback
ext4 | data=writeback,extents,delalloc
xfs | defaults is ordered !
So you have compared ext's in writeback (which fastest mode) vs xfs in ordered.
sftf wrote:
> Hi!
> IMHO this test is not 100% correct.
> ext3 | data=writeback
> ext4 | data=writeback,extents,delalloc
> xfs | defaults is ordered !
>
> So you have compared ext's in writeback (which fastest mode) vs xfs in ordered.
Actually xfs's default (only) mode is more like writeback than ordered.
So that's a fair comparison. I bet it is xfs's barriers that hurt
it, though - while they are pretty much required on a single disk with a
volatile write cache, I think xfs's barrier implementation hurts it more
than barriers for ext*
-Eric
Valerie Clement a ?crit :
> Hi,
> I re-ran some FFSB tests on ext3, ext4 and xfs filesystems, on a
> 2.6.22-rc5 kernel and with the latest ext4-git-tree (update of June 26).
>
> The results are available here:
> http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20070627/ffsb-write.html
>
> Regards,
> Val?rie
An update of the Iozone test is also avialable:
http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20070627/iozone.html
cheers,
Jean noel