On Friday, March 01, 2002 11:55:18 PM -0600 Ray Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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)
With this file size, the reiserfs tail code will be a bottleneck.
I'd suggest mounting with -o notail, it makes a huge difference in
my postmark tests.
-chris
