CONFIG:
Software RAID 5 (400GB x 6): Default mkfs parameters for all filesystems.
Kernel was 2.6.21 or 2.6.22, did these awhile ago.
Hardware was SATA with PCI-e only, nothing on the PCI bus.
ZFS was userspace+fuse of course.
Reiser was V3.
EXT4 was created using the recommended options on its
[trimmed all but linux-raid from the cc]
On 7/30/07, Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CONFIG:
Software RAID 5 (400GB x 6): Default mkfs parameters for all filesystems.
Kernel was 2.6.21 or 2.6.22, did these awhile ago.
Can you give 2.6.22.1-iop1 a try to see what affect it has on
Justin Piszcz wrote:
CONFIG:
Software RAID 5 (400GB x 6): Default mkfs parameters for all filesystems.
Kernel was 2.6.21 or 2.6.22, did these awhile ago.
Hardware was SATA with PCI-e only, nothing on the PCI bus.
ZFS was userspace+fuse of course.
Wow! Userspace and still that efficient.
Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest.
Are you sure these numbers are correct?
Note, that %cpu numbers for fuse filesystems are inherently skewed,
because the CPU usage of the filesystem process itself is not taken
into account.
So the numbers are not all that good, but
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 10:29 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Overall JFS seems the fastest but reviewing the mailing list for JFS it
seems like there a lot of problems, especially when people who use JFS 1
year, their speed goes to 5 MiB/s over time and the defragfs tool has been
removed(?)
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest.
Are you sure these numbers are correct?
Note, that %cpu numbers for fuse filesystems are inherently skewed,
because the CPU usage of the filesystem process itself is not taken
into account.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Dan Williams wrote:
[trimmed all but linux-raid from the cc]
On 7/30/07, Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CONFIG:
Software RAID 5 (400GB x 6): Default mkfs parameters for all filesystems.
Kernel was 2.6.21 or 2.6.22, did these awhile ago.
Can you give
