[Jfs-discussion] benchmark results
Christian Kujau
lists at nerdbynature.de
Fri Dec 25 01:52:34 UTC 2009
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 at 16:27, tytso at mit.edu wrote:
> If you don't do a "sync" after the tar, then in most cases you will be
> measuring the memory bandwidth, because data won't have been written
Well, I do "sync" after each operation, so the data should be on disk, but
that doesn't mean it'll clear the filesystem buffers - but this doesn't
happen that often in the real world too. Also, all filesystem were tested
equally (I hope), yet some filesystem perform better than another - even
if all the content copied/tar'ed/removed would perfectly well fit into the
machines RAM.
> Another good example of well done file system benchmarks can be found
> at http://btrfs.boxacle.net
Thanks, I'll have a look at it and perhaps even integrate it in the
wrapper script.
> benchmarks for a living. Note that JFS and XFS come off much better
> on a number of the tests
Indeed, I was surpised to see JFS perform that good and XFS of course is
one of the best too - I just wanted to point out that both of them
are strangely slow at times (removing or creating many files) - not what I
expected.
> --- and that there is a *large* number amount
> of variation when you look at different simulated workloads and with a
> varying number of threads writing to the file system at the same time.
True, the TODO list in the script ("different benchmark options") is in
there for a reason :-)
Christian.
--
BOFH excuse #291:
Due to the CDA, we no longer have a root account.
More information about the Ext3-users
mailing list