On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 05:53:33PM -0500, Sonny Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 11:40:21AM +0100, Michael M?ller wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I read an article in the German 'Linux Magazin' 11/04 about a > > comparision of the different FS. They tested Ext2, Ext3, JFS, XFS, > > ReiserFS, Reiser4 and Veritas. Detailed results can be found on > > http://www.linux-magazin.de/Service/Listings/2004/11/fs_bench.
The link only contains test results; no German texts. > My guess is that they didn't set the readahead high enough for > whatever type of device they were testing on 2.6 (It looks like a Raid > array, since on 2.4 it gets about 100MB/sec, which I don't think very > many single disks can do). The readahead implementation on 2.6 is > certainly different from the one on 2.4. IO performance on 2.6 is > much, much better across the board. > > My German isn't great, so I'm not going to try and read the article, > but I'd also like to know what kind of array they are using for this > test. Before we can make any conclusions, we should know what the > hardware is capable of doing. The hardware: Pentium 4, 2.8GHz, 512MB, 12 SATA-HDs in a RAID, overall capacity 2TB, test partition 200GB For the 2.4 tests they used SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8, kernel 2.4.21-138-smp, for 2.6 SuSE Linux 9.1, 2.6.7-mm4 with patches for Reiser 4. Regards Michael _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
