On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:07:05 -0800 (PST) death rince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I was browsing through benchmarks of Reiserfs and > other filesystem when I came across this, > > http://linuxgazette.net/102/piszcz.html > > Can anyone please give an insight, behind the > rationale of such tests and what exactly it signifies > in terms of working of the kernel with respect to > different filesystems. IMHO this benchmark is rather pointless (and faulty). A sync between each run is not enough. A reboot would be better. Also, the time for "sync" should be included in the timing, IMO. Additionally this page doesn't mention mount options. For example, the time required to open a mail folder containing ~2000 messages in Sylpheed dropped from ~8 seconds to <1 second when using the "notail" option in reiserfs. This disables efficient storage of very small files (<4kB) and "tails" of larger files. In Linux, this feature is unique to ReiserFS anyway (NTFS in Windows supports this as well). If you want to find the best all-purpose filesystem use a proven benchmark like bonnie, bonnie++ or tiobench. If you have a specific application, just benchmark the real thing. If you're running an average desktop system, simply choose ext3, xfs or reiserfs(with "notail"). The quality of the kernel's IO-scheduling will outweight any filesystem differences anyway. If you are doing video *recording* (especially multiple streams at once) choose XFS. All other filesystems suffer enormously when doing simultaneous streaming writes. Regards -- [email protected] mailing list
