| To: | Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5 |
| From: | Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:12:17 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | a1426z@xxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <E1IFb5f-00006O-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707301021090.12456@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200707302207.02672.a1426z@xxxxxxxxx> <E1IFb5f-00006O-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Miklos Szeredi wrote: Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest. Are you sure these numbers are correct?Note, that %cpu numbers for fuse filesystems are inherently skewed, because the CPU usage of the filesystem process itself is not taken into account. So the numbers are not all that good, but according to the zfs-fuse author it hasn't been optimized yet, so they may improve. Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html This was performed on an E6300, 1 core was ZFS/FUSE (or quite a bit of it anyway) |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5, Dave Kleikamp |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Repeated XFS corruption -Corruption of in-memory data detected, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5, Miklos Szeredi |
| Next by Thread: | Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5, Theodore Tso |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |