From: Christian Kujau Subject: benchmark results Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:31:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII To: xfs@oss.sgi.com, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, ext-users , linu Return-path: Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org I've had the chance to use a testsystem here and couldn't resist running a few benchmark programs on them: bonnie++, tiobench, dbench and a few generic ones (cp/rm/tar/etc...) on ext{234}, btrfs, jfs, ufs, xfs, zfs. All with standard mkfs/mount options and +noatime for all of them. Here are the results, no graphs - sorry: http://nerdbynature.de/benchmarks/v40z/2009-12-22/ Reiserfs is locking up during dbench, so I removed it from the config, here are some earlier results: http://nerdbynature.de/benchmarks/v40z/2009-12-21/bonnie.html Bonnie++ couldn't complete on nilfs2, only the generic tests and tiobench were run. As nilfs2, ufs, zfs aren't supporting xattr, dbench could not be run on these filesystems. Short summary, AFAICT: - btrfs, ext4 are the overall winners - xfs to, but creating/deleting many files was *very* slow - if you need only fast but no cool features or journaling, ext2 is still a good choice :) Thanks, Christian. -- BOFH excuse #84: Someone is standing on the ethernet cable, causing a kink in the cable