xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on softw

To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:41:44 -0400
Cc: a1426z@xxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <E1IFb5f-00006O-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Mail-followup-to: Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>, a1426z@xxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707301021090.12456@p34.internal.lan> <200707302207.02672.a1426z@gawab.com> <E1IFb5f-00006O-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:39:39PM +0200, 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.

Also, something which is data i/o intensive is going to be the best
case for a FUSE filesystem.  If you try something which is much more
metadata intensive (i.e., lots of file creates and deletes, chmods,
etc.) like say with a Postmark benchmark, you would almost certainly
get very different results.  That's not to say that bonnie++
benchmarks aren't useful, but when doing comparisons between
filesystems, it's a good idea to use a wide variety of benchmarks to
avoid getting potentially misleading results.

                                        - Ted


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