We'll try to reproduce your results. We haven't run postmark recently I think. Elena can you try to reproduce?
Can you describe your hardware? Do you have tails on or off? Hans Ray Bryant wrote: >I've been working on a draft of a file systems performance paper >comparing ext2, ext3, resiferfs, and xfs performance when running under >a couple of different benchmarks, one of which is postmark. I'm seeing >numbers which are pretty dramatically different than the ones that are >posted on the www.reiserfs.org web site for this benchmark. Here is an >example of the kind of results I have been getting: > >4KB File System Block Size >512B read/write size (postmark default) >500-9.6K file size distribution (postmark default) >3 trials (shown below as trial1/trial2/trial3) >1 thread (we've made postmark multithreaded) > >file system create/s transactions/s delete/s >ext2 692/703/711 405/417/408 2129/27691/27507 >ext3 264/262/265 238/246/246 469/505/472 >reiserfs 58/64/58 58/55/59 77/84/76 >reiserfs notail 77/77/74 81/77/77 120/116/124 >xfs 958/971/921 227/224/224 222/223/221 > >This is with kernel 2.4.16, the machine is a 4-way 700 MHZ Xeon with 3GB >of memory. There are 4 file systems being used. The disks are old slow >SCSI disks (8 GB each) and each file system is on a separate disk. The >configuration file for postmark is as follows: > ># Like default config, but only 1 thread ># 512b read/write ># 500 to 9.77 KB file size ># 8 threads >set location + /mnt/sdb1 1 >set location + /mnt/sdc1 1 >set location + /mnt/sdd1 1 >set location + /mnt/sde1 1 >set number 100000 >set transactions 60000 >set threads 1 >set subdirectories 2000 >set seed random >set print 10 >set bias read 75 >set bias create 60 >show >run >quit > >We've extended the existing postmark benchmark in a number of ways, one >of the ways is to make it multithreaded. However, this set of runs was >done with a single thread so it SHOULD be comparable to the published >numbers. > >The problem is that our numbers show ReiserFS is slower than the other >measured systems while the measurements on the web page indicate >ReiserFS is faster for this particular benchmark. We'd like to be as >correct and fair as possible about any comparisons we publish, (we don't >want to create another Mindcraft like controversy), so we are interested >in understanding if we have somehow configured or are running ResiferFS >incorrectly. > >Just to make sure we've not done anything silly in our version of the >postmark benchmark, I've attached a copy of the current code. We'd >appreciate it if someone on this list could either point out what we are >doing that makes Reiserfs run slowly, or if they could verify or refute >our results on some other hardware setup we would appreciate that as >well. >
