Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*benchmarks\s*$/: 55 ]

Total 55 documents matching your query.

1. Benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Roger <roger.m@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:41:14 -0400
i'm using 2x750 P3 (smp) with 2 hdd's of 20GB & a 40GB. i've done a thorough search for some benchmarks of the ext2/rieser/xfs filesystems but they all seem to conflict with each other. some state th
/archives/xfs/2001-10/msg00781.html (7,310 bytes)

2. Re: Benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Bryan-TheBS-Smith <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:22:59 -0400
You should focus less on performance, because there is a _lot_ of overlap, and more on figuring out what you need. E.g., ReiserFS is fine and dandy for Windows servers, but you'll have problems with
/archives/xfs/2001-10/msg00782.html (8,252 bytes)

3. Benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Roger <roger.m@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:41:14 -0400
e
/archives/xfs/2001-10/msg01861.html (7,310 bytes)

4. Re: Benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Bryan-TheBS-Smith <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:22:59 -0400
h
/archives/xfs/2001-10/msg01862.html (8,252 bytes)

5. benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: "P.Dixon" <P.Dixon@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:23:15 +0100 (BST)
Any idea why xfs appears to be very much slower than reiserfs with these benchmarks: http://www.namesys.com/benchmarks/mongo/2.4.5-xfs-ext2_vs_reiserfs.html Admittedly, the benchmarks were done by n
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00535.html (7,936 bytes)

6. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:31:36 +0200
Any idea why xfs appears to be very much slower than reiserfs with these benchmarks: http://www.namesys.com/benchmarks/mongo/2.4.5-xfs-ext2_vs_reiserfs.html Admittedly, the benchmarks were done by na
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00537.html (9,248 bytes)

7. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:39:49 +0200
from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA1857306; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:49:05 +0200 (CEST) Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx Organization: Sauter AG,
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00538.html (9,861 bytes)

8. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Mike Gigante <mg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:20:59 +1000
XFS is pretty tuneable - so you could play with inode size, log size number of allocation groups etc to best suit your usage. Such tuning doesn't seem possible with ReiserFS ... The mongo benchmarks
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00540.html (11,397 bytes)

9. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Utz Lehmann <leh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:19:22 +0200
My experience with fs benchmarking is, that under different conditions the results are different (and another filesystem wins). Nearly almost fs benchmark have nothing todo with real life. They are
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00541.html (10,419 bytes)

10. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:23:19 -0500
More than _done_ by namesys, but _written_ by namesys. [eric@stout eric]$ tar xvzf mongo.tar.gz [eric@stout eric]$ cd mongo_pl [eric@stout mongo_pl]$ more mongo.pl ... I'm not saying that there's any
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00544.html (9,491 bytes)

11. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: s-luppescu@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:42:23 -0500 (CDT)
This is very interesting, but as I've already made my filesystem (and don't relish the thought of wiping it out and doing it over again) the option on mkfs is not useful to me. But I might be able to
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00548.html (10,277 bytes)

12. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:50:42 -0500
An external log is growable, an internal one unfortunately is not, and we keep kicking SGI support people who build multi-terabyte filesystems without reading the man page. Unless you specified othe
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00550.html (10,189 bytes)

13. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: "P.Dixon" <P.Dixon@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:21:51 +0100 (BST)
This page is a bit more enlightening: http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue68/dellomodarme.html ...but the conclusions are all wrong. For files that are between 100 bytes and 1000 bytes (i.e. very small
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00560.html (8,780 bytes)

14. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 02:53:47 +0800
(Note: original message seen in the XFS mailing list. Reply cross-posted to ReiserFS mailing list to prevent any occurences of "backstabbing" which I abhor) Quoting "P.Dixon" <P.Dixon@xxxxxxxxx>: The
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00570.html (14,632 bytes)

15. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 03:04:16 +0800
Quoting Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>: Does mkfs default to create one or two logbufs? If it default to creating one, I presume that it creates an external log which you can then grow using the mount opt
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00572.html (9,767 bytes)

16. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:46:19 -0500
You have your terminology crossed, logbufs are in memory buffers the number of which is configurable at mount time, they basically represent the number of buffers which can be in flight on their way
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00574.html (11,877 bytes)

17. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: Mike Gigante <mg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:33:07 +1000
Good idea to cross-post! For the benefit of the Reiser list, I am running a diverse set of f/s benchmarks with a number of different XFS 'configurations'. I am doing so after some conversations at a
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00588.html (16,892 bytes)

18. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: David Lloyd <lloy0076@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:16:46 +0930
I don't have the expertise to ensure they're fair. However, from just "using" them, ReiserFS and XFS both feel faster than ext2, but that's about all I can really say. DSL
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00591.html (9,021 bytes)

19. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: xxx
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:41:26 +0200
Reiserfs doesn't have inodes or allocation groups, so naturally you can't change them. :-) However, it does use a pretty modular system for some datastructures - eg the stat-data and hashes. This mea
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00687.html (10,074 bytes)

20. Re: benchmarks (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:11:25 -0500
mongo tests how the filesystem behaves under the endcase of continuous metadata load from an application which is doing nothing with the data except reading it and writing it. It is a rare applicati
/archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00693.html (9,852 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu