Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    206

    Default encoding for filesystem benchmarking?

    Why are those encoding tests used again and again to benchmark file-system performance? I mean all of the do basically linear reading/writing, and not only in this test the results never differ more than 10% -> useless.

    What I would care more about is moving/creating/deleting files, system bootup time, kernel unpack&compile, find over a whole system ... something which really stresses a FS and the IO subsystem.

    I also don't run aalib stuff in my terminal to benchmark my graphic hardware

    - Clemens
    Last edited by Linuxhippy; 03-16-2009 at 02:31 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    130

    Default Try Btrfs, just to see how phenomenally it SUCKS

    Just wait till you add Btrfs in the mix -- it's going to be the top-down LOSER compared to all other Linux filesystems.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5

    Lightbulb And what about power consumption?

    It would be interested also to have for each of those tests the power consumption measured so that we could have a kind of unit speed/Watt. This would be useful for laptop owners.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stan View Post
    Just wait till you add Btrfs in the mix -- it's going to be the top-down LOSER compared to all other Linux filesystems.
    Same ZFS, but other things count here.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    67

    Default

    I can't wait to see the benchmarks on the btrfs filesystem. I hope it's not a bust.

    Edit: is "btrfs filesystem" redundant? lol

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,712

    Default

    a) did you turn on barriers for ext3? Or did you turn OFF barriers for xfs, reiserfs, ext4?
    b) did you know that the intel ssd becomes SLOWER after a certain amount of i/o a day?
    c) if yes, which was the frist fs tested? which one last?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /dev/random
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWalrus View Post
    Edit: is "btrfs filesystem" redundant? lol
    Btrfs is going to have waaaay to many features to be fast, Tux3 will hopefully be fast

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linuxhippy View Post
    Why are those encoding tests used again and again to benchmark file-system performance? I mean all of the do basically linear reading/writing, and not only in this test the results never differ more than 10% -> useless.

    What I would care more about is moving/creating/deleting files, system bootup time, kernel unpack&compile, find over a whole system ... something which really stresses a FS and the IO subsystem.

    I also don't run aalib stuff in my terminal to benchmark my graphic hardware

    - Clemens
    I did that - reiser4 won. ext3 is slow. xfs is slow as soon as you have to deal with lots of small files.

    Others did too - look at this one:

    http://bulk.fefe.de/lk2006/

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21

    Default CPU usage

    I thought CPU usage is quite important to be benchmarked, since it corresponds to power consumption, which is a big concern from laptop users.

    I should not be the only one who were looking forward to seeing CPU usage test when next time brtfs is involved.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    67

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    a) did you turn on barriers for ext3? Or did you turn OFF barriers for xfs, reiserfs, ext4?
    b) did you know that the intel ssd becomes SLOWER after a certain amount of i/o a day?
    c) if yes, which was the frist fs tested? which one last?
    Well based on how results are combined with PTS and Phoronix Global, I assume the order was ReiserFS, JFS, XFS, EXT3, and EXT4.

    With Phoronix Test Suite, a benchmark is done on ReiserFS (a file is created with the results), a benchmark is done on JFS (the ReiserFS file is appended to add JFS results), a benchmark is done on XFS (original file appended to add XFS after ReiserFS and JFS), and so on.

    Here's an example of a test that I did last night, in which I added my ram results on my Inspiron 1501 to results of two other PC's: http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...53-16357-24910

    You could also add your ram benchmark to this by running
    Code:
    phoronix-test-suite benchmark brian-22653-16357-24910
    Also, (a way to eliminate the IO issue you claim) Phoronix could have used a host system with many partitions set up on the Intel SSD, one for each file system. Then they wouldn't have to reboot (and install) to test the next file system. This would also mean that they could have ran each test for each file system before moving to the next test, eliminating the disadvantage of one file system experiencing slower speeds due to IO loss (instead, all file systems would experience slower speeds for the next test).

Posting Permissions

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