xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

benchmark results

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, reiserfs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jfs-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ext-users <ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-nilfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: benchmark results
From: Christian Kujau <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:31:10 -0800 (PST)
User-agent: Alpine 2.01 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
I've had the chance to use a testsystem here and couldn't resist running a 
few benchmark programs on them: bonnie++, tiobench, dbench and a few 
generic ones (cp/rm/tar/etc...) on ext{234}, btrfs, jfs, ufs, xfs, zfs.

All with standard mkfs/mount options and +noatime for all of them.

Here are the results, no graphs - sorry:
   http://nerdbynature.de/benchmarks/v40z/2009-12-22/

Reiserfs is locking up during dbench, so I removed it from the 
config, here are some earlier results:

   http://nerdbynature.de/benchmarks/v40z/2009-12-21/bonnie.html

Bonnie++ couldn't complete on nilfs2, only the generic tests 
and tiobench were run. As nilfs2, ufs, zfs aren't supporting xattr, dbench 
could not be run on these filesystems.
   
Short summary, AFAICT:
    - btrfs, ext4 are the overall winners
    - xfs to, but creating/deleting many files was *very* slow
    - if you need only fast but no cool features or journaling, ext2
      is still a good choice :)

Thanks,
Christian.
-- 
BOFH excuse #84:

Someone is standing on the ethernet cable, causing a kink in the cable

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