Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: File-System Benchmarks On The Intel X25-E SSD

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,369

    Default File-System Benchmarks On The Intel X25-E SSD

    Phoronix: File-System Benchmarks On The Intel X25-E SSD

    Late last month we looked at the Intel X25-E Extreme SSD on Linux. We ran this high-performance solid-state drive within a System76 Serval Notebook and compared its performance to a Seagate Momentus 7200.2 SATA HDD. During that testing we were just using the default EXT3 file-system, but now we have taken the Intel X25-E SSD for another spin as we looked at its performance when using the ReiserFS, JFS, XFS, EXT3, and EXT4 file-systems.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13600

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    76

    Default

    I'd love to see reiser4 with cryptcompress on when your pulling in btrfs testing.
    A basic mkfs.reiser4 -o create=ccreg40,compress=lzo1 for example.

    It'll up the cpu usage, but it'd be interesting to see how much faster reiser4 is when seek times arn't involved.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Is it possible that files for compilation tests are all in cache already, so Kernel never touch file system code anyway, hence same results across the board? I don't see in TFA any measures taken for clearing cache between tests.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9

    Default

    I wonder what could be the performance of the file systems specialized for solid state drives (JFFS2, YAFFS2, LogFS, UBIFS...). Any reason for not including them in this benchmark ?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Where's Reiser4?

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gentooer View Post
    Where's Reiser4?
    Far away from Linux kernel...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Far away from Linux kernel...
    ... deeply burried somewhere in california.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _pma View Post
    I wonder what could be the performance of the file systems specialized for solid state drives (JFFS2, YAFFS2, LogFS, UBIFS...). Any reason for not including them in this benchmark ?
    Because they need direct access to the flash memory (via MTD), while SSD expose themselves as normal HDs (i.e. block devices).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    573

    Default

    Hey Michael, can you do an article about ATI Stream Software Development Kit (SDK)since it's the amd counterpart againts NVIDIA Cuda?

    http://developer.amd.com/gpu/ATIStre...s/default.aspx

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _pma View Post
    ... deeply burried somewhere in california.
    if both is true - so what ?

    it's still by far the best filesystem out there (btrfs doesn't count yet)

    that criteria that a filesystem's included in the linux-kernel doesn't mean that it's superior compared to other filesystems

    also the benchmarks are not fair, jfs doesn't support barriers from what I know

    and ext3, ... have no support for extents / delayed allocation, ...

    so when comparing those filesystems the differences have to be pointed out

    also: WHERE ON EARTH IS SPACE EFFICIENCY / SPACE USAGE compared ?

    especially with the early SSDs space is pretty precious and if you can store double compared with another filesystem it's worth gold ...

    besides all of this ranting:


    thanks very much for these benchmarks, they at least give an superficial possibility to compare the filesystems to each other

Posting Permissions

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