From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Porting Zfs features to ext2/3 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:34:27 -0400 Message-ID: <20080730013427.GD29748@mit.edu> References: <18674437.post@talk.nabble.com> <1217199281.6992.0.camel@telesto> <20080727233855.GB9378@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Szabolcs Szakacsits Return-path: Received: from BISCAYNE-ONE-STATION.MIT.EDU ([18.7.7.80]:36806 "EHLO biscayne-one-station.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751074AbYG3BfI (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:35:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52:26PM +0000, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote: > I did also an in memory test on a T9300@2.5, with disk I/O completely > eliminated. Results: > > tmpfs: 975 MB/sec > ntfs-3g: 889 MB/sec (note, this FUSE driver is not optimized yet) > ext3: 675 MB/sec Am I write in guessing that this test involved copying a single large file, with no seeks? What happens if you try benchmarking unpacking a kernel source tar.bz2 file? My guess is that ntfs-3g won't look as good. :-) - Ted