Grant Miner wrote:
Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
How much memory you have? How big is mozilla-1.5a.tar? Did you include
'sync' in the tests? It seems reiser4 numbers are mostly in-memory
operations and not all data flushed to disk while this is apparently not
true for ext3. BTW, XFS numbers would be
Szakacsits Szabolcs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, if you have enough CPU capacity (aka you don't run anything else, just
> bechmarking filesystems). Otherwise it seems to be slower. That's I was
> refering to.
This has been the situation with reiserfs 3.5/3.6 before, and it got
resolved, or
How much memory you have? How big is mozilla-1.5a.tar? Did you include
'sync' in the tests? It seems reiser4 numbers are mostly in-memory
operations and not all data flushed to disk while this is apparently not
true for ext3. BTW, XFS numbers would be also/more interesting, ext[23] is
pretty outda
Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
How much memory you have? How big is mozilla-1.5a.tar? Did you include
'sync' in the tests? It seems reiser4 numbers are mostly in-memory
operations and not all data flushed to disk while this is apparently not
true for ext3. BTW, XFS numbers would be also/more interestin
"mozilla-1.5a.tar" is mozilla 1.5alpha source tar, uncompressed.
Partition mkfs.ext3 or mkfs.reiser4 --keys=SHORT is run before each run.
Linux is 2.6.0-test2.
untar mozilla-1.5a.tar (file is on a reiser3 partition):
ext3: 17.64s 28% cpu
reiser4: 10.79s 67% cpu
sum: reiser4 0.61x time, 2.39x cpu
On Tue, 08/05/03 at 23:08:31 +0200, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> BTW, from your numbers it seems ext3 gives better overall performance.
>
That is an incorrect statement. Reiserfs is KNOWN to be heavier on CPU
than other filesystems, it's benefit is not there, it's benefit is in
speed of operation
