It's good to see someone doing tests on this, but more info is needed on what fs creation and mount options were applied by default. These can have a major effect on the results. Of particular interest would be whether btrfs used the ssd option by default, and how the compress option would affect the results - does the cpu overhead of compression outweigh the reduction of bus traffic between cpu and glamo?
On Thursday 24 June 2010, Gennady Kupava wrote: > Hi, list. > > Unexpectedly, seems it's time for me to repartition my sd card. > > So i decided to find which filesystem is best for current kernels, and > to share my results as this topic should be interesting to everyone who > is using sd card as storage for data. > > The participants - btrfs nilfs2 ext2 ext3 ext4 reiserfs jfs xfs. > > The old well-know test is bonnie++. > > Resulting html table, with 2 runs: > http://www.bsdmn.com/openmoko/fstest/fstestresults.html > > The test script: > http://www.bsdmn.com/openmoko/fstest/fsbench.sh > > Results are really hard to interpret, all filesystems has weak and > strong sides, but i'll try to do some summary now, for whoose who is > interested. > > 1. sequental io, this is quite rare now, so not really matter. > 1.1 sequental output per char > reiser, btrfs is non-usable in this respect. ext3 is close to unusable, > xfs is almost ok. all others same. > 1.2. sequental input per char > all almost the same - latency +-25%, expect btrfs, which is 30% slower > and have extraoridinary latencies. xfs is not good at speed too. > > 2. block io, most important thing. > 2.1 8k blocks write > here is most surprise - ext4 and ext2 are slowest. almost 50% slower > than xfs, jfs. ext3 have outstandingly bad latency. > 2.2 most important thing for fs - block read. > they all the same, except btrfs, which is much slower. > 2.3. rewrite > all almost same, expect btrfs and ext3. > > 3. random seeks. > it's seek+read or write. useful operation. only test where btrfs is > relatively good in performance. > > 4. create/delete tests > 1. Create (random) > great difference here, ext2, ext4, xfs, are bad. ext3, btrfs, reiser > 5-10 times better. > 2. delete (random) > ext2,ext3,ext4,reiser,btrfs are good, jfs and xfs 10 times slower. > > my conclusion here is that good filesystems: > ext2 and ext4 have same performance in this test. > reiserfs is best, despite of name of it's creator. > ext2 is good except file creation and remove. > xfs is good except file creation and remove. > ext3 is good _for_ file creation and remove. > > so, my choise of fs will be: > /boot -> ext2 for compatibility > /, /usr -> xfs, need fast block r/w. > /home -> reiser, need fast file create/remove, and overall balance > /var -> reiser, 'append fs', need good overall balance. > > i wanted to test nilfs2 (and use it for /var), but it didn't pass > testing - out of free space. > > All tests were done on .34, yesterday git (with FIFO LCM patch). Short > tests algorithm: for each fs: create fs on same mmc partition, mount > (with noatime) and run bonnie in mounted directory, then umount. I did > two runs to ensure results are sane. > > plain dd read speed of my sd card is 2.7Mb/s. > > Gennady. > > > _______________________________________________ > Openmoko community mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
