From: Szabolcs Szakacsits Subject: Re: Porting Zfs features to ext2/3 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:38:13 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: References: <18674437.post@talk.nabble.com> <1217199281.6992.0.camel@telesto> <20080727233855.GB9378@mit.edu> <20080730013427.GD29748@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from tamago.serverit.net ([91.189.209.155]:39691 "EHLO mail.hosting2.serverit.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762888AbYHDUiV (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:38:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > What happens if you try benchmarking unpacking a kernel source tar.bz2 > > file? My guess is that ntfs-3g won't look as good. :-) > > It seems the tar.bz2 number is not so bad relatively but the metadata > performance difference is much more visible by eliminating the compression > overhead. The results are in second. > > ext3 ntfs-3g > tar.bz2 7.7 12.4 > tar.gz 3.1 8.7 > tar 1.4 7.6 Sorry, I didn't use the currently best performing ntfs-3g version. Corrected results: ext3 ntfs-3g ---- ------- tar.bz2 7.7 9.9 tar.gz 3.1 6.0 tar 1.4 4.9 Compilation of e2fsprogs: ext3 ntfs-3g ---- ------- unpack 0.27 0.47 configure 8.42 9.73 make 21.35 23.33 make -j 13.21 14.09 make clean 0.20 0.24 Please not that ntfs-3g and fuse is not yet optimized for metadata operations. Szaka -- NTFS-3G: http://ntfs-3g.org