Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'
Hans, I am surprised that Reiser4 does so well, and I would be interested in knowing more details of exactly what the test does. Our tests show reiser4 not doing THAT much better, so you must be doing something different from our tests. Unfortunately LKML was not CC'd even once in this thread so your mail that CC'd lkml looked very strange because it was a reply to messages not seen on the list :-( If you had the intention of letting folks outside reiserfs-ml know, you might have missed it. Maybe Grzegorz Kulewski's suggestion about Adrian doing repetetive benchmarks and posting them regularly is quite valid and sensible. -- Best regards, Pysiak
Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'
Dnia Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:59:43 +0100, Adrian Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał: If anyone is interested: I ran a small filesystem benchmark on my x86 PC. It includes: On Linux: * Reiser4 * ReiserFS * Ext3 On Solaris (Using 'gnusolaris'[.org] - Alpha 2) * UFS * ZFS NetApp's 'Postmark' was used to perform the tests. (Postmark simulates something like Mail/NNTP-Server load) Results: http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt Is it just me or did You also found out that reiser4 is little faster in those tests?? ;) (Now I know why I'm using r4) Łukasz Mierzwa
Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Adrian Ulrich wrote: Hi, If anyone is interested: I ran a small filesystem benchmark on my x86 PC. It includes: On Linux: * Reiser4 * ReiserFS * Ext3 On Solaris (Using 'gnusolaris'[.org] - Alpha 2) * UFS * ZFS NetApp's 'Postmark' was used to perform the tests. (Postmark simulates something like Mail/NNTP-Server load) Results: http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt (I used the *default* mkfs/mount options for all filesystems. If you like, i can re-run the test with non-default parameters) WOW! I am misreading something or Reiser4 is _really_ _that_ _fast_? Could you also add some basic description what these tests do? Do they ensure that the data is really written to disk before the timer stops? What about using bigger partition (and data written/read) - say 4 times your RAM? Are you rebooting after creating fs? Could you make scripts you used available? Could you add ext2, jfs, xfs to these benchmarks? Maybe also some other bechmarking program? Also maybe add Reiser4 with compression plugin to the list of filesystems. Also, maybe you should post the updated results (preferably attached, not URL if it will fit in 60KB) to LKML for wider discussion about why things are like this? Thanks, Grzegorz Kulewski
Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'
I'm curious if disabling ZFS checksumming would make a significant difference. On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 22:59 +0100, Adrian Ulrich wrote: Hi, If anyone is interested: I ran a small filesystem benchmark on my x86 PC. It includes: On Linux: * Reiser4 * ReiserFS * Ext3 On Solaris (Using 'gnusolaris'[.org] - Alpha 2) * UFS * ZFS NetApp's 'Postmark' was used to perform the tests. (Postmark simulates something like Mail/NNTP-Server load) Results: http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt (I used the *default* mkfs/mount options for all filesystems. If you like, i can re-run the test with non-default parameters) -- Adrian -- Jake Maciejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'
On Feb 02, 2006 22:59 +0100, Adrian Ulrich wrote: If anyone is interested: I ran a small filesystem benchmark on my x86 PC. It includes: On Linux: * Reiser4 * ReiserFS * Ext3 On Solaris (Using 'gnusolaris'[.org] - Alpha 2) * UFS * ZFS NetApp's 'Postmark' was used to perform the tests. (Postmark simulates something like Mail/NNTP-Server load) Results: http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt (I used the *default* mkfs/mount options for all filesystems. If you like, i can re-run the test with non-default parameters) If you could format (or tune2fs) the ext3 filesystem with -O dir_index this would likely improve performance if the test is creating many files in the same dir. Also, is the file size limit in bytes, or kilobytes? Unfortunately, the canonical postmark URLs I can find are not useful. What is a interesting, though maybe not terribly surprising is that ZFS is doing so poorly in the second test. I'd be extremely interested in seeing the vmstat output while the tests are running, as I've heard that ZFS is CPU hungry because of the checksumming. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.
Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'
I am surprised that Reiser4 does so well, and I would be interested in knowing more details of exactly what the test does. Our tests show reiser4 not doing THAT much better, so you must be doing something different from our tests. I learn from almost every benchmark done by other people, because they almost always test differently from what I had imagined I should test. Hans
