Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-30 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > >> * buffered write (1GB file), 4KByte write > > > > Ok, f2fs is bit faster on desktop PC and a bit slower on S3. Good. > > > > > >> * write + fsync (100MB file), 4KByte write > > > > Ok, random access on VFAT is a lot faster on S3 (and only very > > a bit on PC). Any idea why results

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-30 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! * buffered write (1GB file), 4KByte write Ok, f2fs is bit faster on desktop PC and a bit slower on S3. Good. * write + fsync (100MB file), 4KByte write Ok, random access on VFAT is a lot faster on S3 (and only very a bit on PC). Any idea why results are so different

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-23 Thread Vyacheslav Dubeyko
On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:07 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> As requested, I compared performance of VFAT with f2fs on SD card. >> Following is summary of the measurement. > > Thanks. > >> VFAT shows better performance on both random write+fsync and >> buffered-sequential write than f2fs. >>

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-23 Thread Vyacheslav Dubeyko
On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:07 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! As requested, I compared performance of VFAT with f2fs on SD card. Following is summary of the measurement. Thanks. VFAT shows better performance on both random write+fsync and buffered-sequential write than f2fs. However, on

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-22 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > As requested, I compared performance of VFAT with f2fs on SD card. > Following is summary of the measurement. Thanks. > VFAT shows better performance on both random write+fsync and > buffered-sequential write than f2fs. > However, on buffered-random and sequential write+fsync, f2fs still

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-22 Thread Sooman Jeong
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:26:38 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >Hi! > This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. >>> >>> Hmm, flashes are actually optimized for VFAT, right? Can you

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-22 Thread Sooman Jeong
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:26:38 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. Hmm, flashes are actually optimized for VFAT, right? Can you compare against that?

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-22 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! As requested, I compared performance of VFAT with f2fs on SD card. Following is summary of the measurement. Thanks. VFAT shows better performance on both random write+fsync and buffered-sequential write than f2fs. However, on buffered-random and sequential write+fsync, f2fs still

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-21 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > >> This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of > >> f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. > >> > > > > Hmm, flashes are actually optimized for VFAT, right? Can you compare > > against that? > > > > Do you mean SD-cards?

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-21 Thread Vyacheslav Dubeyko
On Oct 20, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2012-10-16 13:07:03, Sooman Jeong wrote: >> >> This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs >> against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. >> > > Hmm, flashes are actually

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-21 Thread Vyacheslav Dubeyko
On Oct 20, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: On Tue 2012-10-16 13:07:03, Sooman Jeong wrote: This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. Hmm, flashes are actually optimized for

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-21 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. Hmm, flashes are actually optimized for VFAT, right? Can you compare against that? Do you mean SD-cards? Because, as I can

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-20 Thread Pavel Machek
On Tue 2012-10-16 13:07:03, Sooman Jeong wrote: > > This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs > against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. > Hmm, flashes are actually optimized for VFAT, right? Can you compare against that? What about

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-20 Thread Pavel Machek
On Tue 2012-10-16 13:07:03, Sooman Jeong wrote: This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. Hmm, flashes are actually optimized for VFAT, right? Can you compare against that? What about

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-16 Thread Sooman Jeong
Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:58:59 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: >Hello. > >Would you share the result about random read ? > >Thanks. > >2012/10/16, Sooman Jeong <77sm...@hanyang.ac.kr>: >> >> This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs >> against existing two filesystems in

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-16 Thread Namjae Jeon
Hello. Would you share the result about random read ? Thanks. 2012/10/16, Sooman Jeong <77sm...@hanyang.ac.kr>: > > This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs > against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. > > > * test platform > 　i)

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-16 Thread Namjae Jeon
Hello. Would you share the result about random read ? Thanks. 2012/10/16, Sooman Jeong 77sm...@hanyang.ac.kr: This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. * test platform 　i) Desktop PC :

Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-16 Thread Sooman Jeong
Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:58:59 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: Hello. Would you share the result about random read ? Thanks. 2012/10/16, Sooman Jeong 77sm...@hanyang.ac.kr: This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4,

Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-15 Thread Sooman Jeong
This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. * test platform 　i) Desktop PC : Linux 3.6.1 (f2fs patched), Intel i5-2500 @3.3GHz quad-core, 8GB RAM, Transcend 16GB class 10 micro SD card 　ii)

Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

2012-10-15 Thread Sooman Jeong
This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. * test platform 　i) Desktop PC : Linux 3.6.1 (f2fs patched), Intel i5-2500 @3.3GHz quad-core, 8GB RAM, Transcend 16GB class 10 micro SD card 　ii)