On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 07:53, Michael Carmack wrote: > > I didn't see any mention of this in the archives. There are some > ReiserFS benchmarks at > > http://www.gurulabs.com/ext3-reiserfs.html > > The first set of tests (for small files) show a significant performance > advantage with 'notail' turned on. Assuming disk space is not an issue, > are there any performance advantages to 'notail' that are not reflected > in these tests?
notail is faster in most cases. With some tail tuning, tails could be faster for synchronous applications (like mail servers) when the file size is <= blocksize. This is because flushing the tail to disk would be free with flushing the new inode information. > > Also, can anyone comment on why Ext3 has a significant edge over ReiserFS > in the small-file tests, but the situation reverses as file-size > increases? There's not much commentary in the article. Getting good consistent results out of postmark is tricky. Notice that between the 2nd and 3rd tests, he changed 3 different postmark variables (file size, number of files, number of transactions). What I can say is that we've been doing performance fixes for reiserfs for a while now, and some of them are really coming together. Many will go into 2.4.20-pre. -chris
