xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Benchmarking ReiserFS, ext2, XFS

To: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Benchmarking ReiserFS, ext2, XFS
From: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:18:58 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <reiserfs-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <200105161451.f4GEpcj17003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Don't forget, small file tests are what big slow db's are made of. :)

-- 
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Steve Lord wrote:

>
> Thanks for the info, I just took a look at the reiserfs archive,
> and subscribed to the list. Interesting that no one on the xfs
> list was contacted about this with questions such as how to configure
> xfs etc (I could say mindcraft here but that might be inflamatory ;-).
> It would certainly be interesting to see which config options were
> used in the filesystem part of the kernel compile. The RPMs were
> shipped with all features turned on which will impact performance,
> turning off quotas and acls would be a good thing.
>
> Anyway, I am not surprised reiserfs wins on small file
> tests, someone independent might want to ask what happens if you
> pull the power in the middle of the test. I suspect the answer on
> reiserfs is that almost nothing is on the disk after reboot, the file
> creation/removal part of bonnie++ (30000 files created and removed
> twice) can complete without disk I/O on reiserfs.
>
> I will download the mongo tests and try them out myself.
>
> As for the ac kernels - I challenge anyone who is working for a living
> and has other things to do to keep something the size of XFS upto date
> with Alan's kernels - I have seen 3 of those in one day. Plus changes
> tend to come and go, and XFS does have its fingers in the VM system,
> getting those in sync is not always straight forward, so it is not a
> matter of apply a patch and go.
>
> Steve
>
> p.s. For the filesystem mkfs and mount part of mongo.pl I would recommend
> this:
>
>     if ( $FILESYSTEM eq "xfs" ) {
>         system("mkfs -t xfs -f -l size=16384b $DEVICE") ;
>         system("mount -o logbufs=4,osyncisdsync $DEVICE $TESTDIR") ;
>     }
>
> This increases the journal size from the default, mounts with 4 in core log
> buffers instead of 2 and makes sure that O_SYNC has the same behavior as
> it does on ext2. For the release kernel I would also add biosize=13 to
> the mount options, this no longer makes a difference in the cvs kernels.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I would ask exactly what was done to apply the 1.0 patches to 2.4.3, this
> is not what we released, was this actually the rpm, or was it downloaded
> from the cvs tree?
>
> >
> > 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>