xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Benchmarking ReiserFS, ext2, XFS

To: Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Benchmarking ReiserFS, ext2, XFS
From: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 20:24:52 +0800 (PHT)
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi everyone,

Following the link that Ed McKenzie <eem12@xxxxxxxxxxx> sent, I read the
ReiserFS list archives searching for benchmarks comparing the performance
of ReiserFS, ext2, and XFS.

Here are results of benchmarks comparing the three using mongo.pl (what
seems to be a pretty extensive benchmark test suite that is has been used
by the ReiserFS development team to measure the performance of their
filesystem since they started, it seems).

<http://www.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/~loizides/reiserfs/ext2-reiserfs-xfs.html>

These test were done on a machine running RedHat 7.1 with the Linux kernel
2.4.3, with a Duron 700MHz CPU, 128MB RAM, and a 9GB SCSI HDD. Filesystem
versions compared are: Ext2 version 0.5b, ReiserFS version 3.6.25, and XFS
version 1.0.

Perhaps the XFS developers would have something to say about the test
results? Speculations on how much better the latest CVS copy of XFS will
perform on Linux 2.4.4?

I do not have a machine to do benchmarks, but if someone out there has, it
would be great to see an updated comparison.

Also I'd like to relay the comments of someone on IRC that I got to chat
with when trying to find someone to talk to about these benchmarks. He/she
said that his/her only real irk with XFS is that the developers aren't
able to keep track of the -ac patches. As a consequence, he is in constant
need of fixing patch rej's. ReiserFS is at an advantage here, because it
has been incorporated into the Linux 2.4 kernel tree.

Comments?

 --> Jijo

--
Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows NT ...
... also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>