Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 101

Thread: Real World Benchmarks Of The EXT4 File-System

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1

    Default CPU Usage

    Has anyone tested CPU usage? Lower CPU usage = less wakeups = better battery life, right?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    It would be interesting to see tests with many small files. I once used XFS for my root filesystem and performance was horrible to do things like unpack sources and remove directories with many files, my system would just freeze while XFS was thrashing away at the disk.

    It's all nice and dandy with multi-gb files, when all those caches and delayed allocations do a great job, but I learned my lesson with XFS, and now use ext3 everywhere.

    I also agree that boot time and application load times are important, although I guess both may be hard to measure with the PTS.
    XFS is easily tweaked to cure that.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Hi,

    Would we see any upgrade tool to migrate from ext3 to ext4, as like a kind of "partition magic" ?
    I wouldn't have to refomat my drive only for migrating from ext3 to ext4.

  4. #14

    Default

    Thanks Michael. Those tests seems to be far more objective then previous. The title is correct in my opinion

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7

    Default JFS

    If this test is done again, could you include JFS also? JFS is a strong contender for best Linux filesystem at the moment.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13

    Default

    In the beginning sentence of the article, it is stated that distributions will be using EXT4 as an interim step.

    Does that mean distributions like Ubuntu and Fedora desktop editions will be skipping the use of EXT4 altogether? I thought Btrfs is more suitable for database storage applications and such.

    Please enlighten the poor soul.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Does that mean distributions like Ubuntu and Fedora desktop editions will be skipping the use of EXT4 altogether? I thought Btrfs is more suitable for database storage applications and such.
    Ext4, even though it's a substantial incremental improvement, is still based on the well proven Ext3 file system. Some of the reason why Ext3 doesn't look good in a lot of benchmarks vs things like XFS and ReiserFS is because Ext3 is designed to be a robust file system for today's cheap and unreliable commodity-based servers and workstations.

    Look at this way: Given what I know about Linux file systems, personal experiences, and second-hand accounts; I wouldn't want to run Reiser or XFS on a server without battery cache on the RAID card AND a UPS or on a laptop or desktop that is prone to errors like kernel oops and power fluctuations. Actually XFS is useful, but I'd never use Reiserfs for anything important. v4 is untested, and v3 is just flaky and unsupported.

    So people will use Ext4 because it's based on proven code.

    Btrfs, despite all it's advancements and new features, is going to take a long time to get acceptance for anybody doing anything very serious. You just can't trust a file system for anything critical that hasn't had a year or two of serious usage by a wide audience.

    Unfortunately the advancements in disk capacity and the relatively lack of progress in increasing disks speeds have obsoleted Ext3. It now takes exponentially longer and longer to recover file systems and run a fsck. And Ext3 doesn't behave well when you get file systems upwards to several TBs. Ext4 will allow enterprises to use Linux as a storage OS until Btrfs is production ready.

    Linux, right now, because of it's lack of very good logical volume management and the limitations of Ext3 isn't nearly as popular as it should be for the storage arena.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1

    Default Disappointing...

    Most of those tests are kind of ridiculous. There's especially no point in testing a video game; any changes in fps would be negligible here. You load the data from disk once, it gets cached into memory, and that's the end of it. Maybe the occasional disk activity here and there with logs and a new data file or two, but it's nothing. Encryption, compression, encoding, etc., are CPU intensive operations. They're rather pointless too.k


    Real-world benchmarks are great and all, but that doesn't mean you just pick a random program and time it. Find something IO-intensive if you don't want to run a purely IO-based benchmark. Boot times for example.

    Also, without reporting the error, your numbers are misleading and dishonest. It's great that you've averaged three runs, but we need to know how consistent the runs were. I have a suspicion that the error in the games benchmarks far outweigh the differences between the filesystems, given how much disk io games do. (Virtually none. Disks accesses slow, and game developers know to avoid them like the plague.)

    Be more careful in your conclusions and, if nothing else, give us reason to trust them.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    Ext4, even though it's a substantial incremental improvement, is still based on the well proven Ext3 file system. Some of the reason why Ext3 doesn't look good in a lot of benchmarks vs things like XFS and ReiserFS is because Ext3 is designed to be a robust file system for today's cheap and unreliable commodity-based servers and workstations.
    Thanks for the explanation, Drag. I guess it seems Ext4 is more mature than Btrfs for the time being.

    I would like to see the benchmarks of Btrfs in the near future. I believe it is at least ready for benchmarking.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    20

    Default

    I was hoping the Phoronix team would take recommendations when benchmarking file systems - I wrote a post about it more than once:
    http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11575

    I don't really understand the Phoronix process; is this purposefully a pseudo-technical publicity stunt?

    I was just hoping that you guys would want to take on something more in depth... Just this once. One in depth article is way more useful to your readers than ten of whatever you call these.

    Sorry for the harsh words and good luck.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •