Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 55

Thread: Finally, Reiser4 Benchmarks Against EXT4 & Btrfs

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by patstew View Post
    I'm very aware that anecdote != data, but reiser4 is the only file system I've had where a bunch of files have irrevocably disappeared, and this was when it was supposed to be reasonably usable, not back when it was expected to be unstable, I'd guess sometime not too long before hans was caught. I'd be pretty wary about trusting it again.
    I had the same happening to me with (in ascending order):

    * reiserfs v3.6 (2004 then NEVER more )
    * JFS several times (it would even corrupt filenames, had problems with file creation dates and make files disappear - I gave it a try several times and each time it happened)
    * XFS (it zeroed several of my files during crashes on /home; when trying to use it on / (root) with dmcrypt [luks] it just literally ZEROED my system partition )
    * ext3 (corrupted my data after crashes)


    * ext4
    * reiserfs
    * reiser4
    ==> safe so far for me with current kernel releases

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    642

    Default

    WTF - stupid 10 minutes alteration window:

    Quote Originally Posted by patstew View Post
    I'm very aware that anecdote != data, but reiser4 is the only file system I've had where a bunch of files have irrevocably disappeared, and this was when it was supposed to be reasonably usable, not back when it was expected to be unstable, I'd guess sometime not too long before hans was caught. I'd be pretty wary about trusting it again.
    I had the same happening to me with (in ascending order):

    * reiserfs v3.6 (2004 then NEVER more, probably some hash problems - I meanwhile switched to tea hash in favor of r5 )
    * JFS several times (it would even corrupt filenames, had problems with file creation dates, problems with "umlaute" ( ) and make files disappear - I gave it a try several times and each time it happened)
    * XFS (it zeroed several of my files during crashes on /home; when trying to use it on / (root) with dmcrypt [luks] it just literally ZEROED my system partition - I tried it three times in 2 years and each time after a hardlock it happened )
    * ext3 (corrupted my data after crashes)


    * ext4
    * reiserfs
    * reiser4
    ==> safe so far for me with current kernel releases

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    642

    Default

    WTF - stupid 10 minutes alteration window:
    WTF - 45 seconds between posts (I understand this helps against those crazy spammers BUT COME ON !)

    Quote Originally Posted by patstew View Post
    I'm very aware that anecdote != data, but reiser4 is the only file system I've had where a bunch of files have irrevocably disappeared, and this was when it was supposed to be reasonably usable, not back when it was expected to be unstable, I'd guess sometime not too long before hans was caught. I'd be pretty wary about trusting it again.
    I had the same happening to me with (in ascending order):

    * reiserfs v3.6 (2004 then NEVER more, probably some hash problems - I meanwhile switched to tea hash in favor of r5 )
    * JFS several times (it would even corrupt filenames, had problems with file creation dates, problems with "umlaute" ( ) and make files disappear - I gave it a try several times and each time it happened)
    * XFS (it zeroed several of my files during crashes on /home; when trying to use it on / (root) with dmcrypt [luks] it just literally ZEROED my system partition - I tried it three times in 2 years and each time after a hardlock it happened )
    * ext3 (corrupted my data after crashes)


    * ext4
    * reiserfs
    * reiser4
    ==> safe so far for me with current kernel releases

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    642

    Default

    sorry but this is ridiculous

    I once posted a correction (which showed an error and got me to post again which said I should wait 45 secs)

    and the reward is a triple post

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    24

    Default next run please inclue XFS

    when you do the next round of such tests, please include XFS. I know that it's now new and sexy, but it's still reliably outperforming many of the filesystems in the test

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    597

    Default

    I think the biggest problem here is Michael don't know how to make a kernel for Ubuntu, so he's used Zen from a PPA / http://liquorix.net/

    Correct me if I'm wrong here

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    29

    Exclamation Stop with the SSD

    I said this once before, but I guess Phoronix doesn't care.

    Please use a standard hard drive. Preferably a laptop drive because those are the majority of hard drives today. Laptops/netops outsell standard desktops now.

    Btrfs is the only file-system with SSD optimizations that you tested.

    The other file-systems are designed with rotational media in mind. Reiser4 is especially tweaked to make seeks minimized.

    With an SSD you are not really testing the algorithms. Seeks are nearly instantaneous. You are testing the CPU/chipset/controller bottleneck.

    On a traditional HD, the seeks during small and random i/o determine the performance more than anything else.

    I appreciate the time you put into the testing, but honestly your results are pretty much meaningless for most people. The market for SSD's are still insignificantly small with home users.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hechacker1 View Post
    I said this once before, but I guess Phoronix doesn't care.

    Please use a standard hard drive. Preferably a laptop drive because those are the majority of hard drives today. Laptops/netops outsell standard desktops now.
    <SNIP>
    With an SSD you are not really testing the algorithms. Seeks are nearly instantaneous. You are testing the CPU/chipset/controller bottleneck.
    <SNIP>
    I appreciate the time you put into the testing, but honestly your results are pretty much meaningless for most people. The market for SSD's are still insignificantly small with home users.
    I disagree with you a bit here.

    it would be nice to see both SSD and rotational tests that are comparable, both so that people considering SSDs can see what difference is made, and also to find out where a particular filesystem may fall behind on a fast disk setup.

    There was a thread on linux-kernel this past week where EXT4 was showing significantly worse performance than XFS on large file writes, but only on systems with fast disk arrays (basically ext4 maxes out at about 60% the performance of XFS) I don't expect Phoronix to have such high-end disk arrays around to test with, but testing with SSDs is likely to show similar problems.

    now if all you care about is 'your typical home user', then Phronix tests don't really matter much anyway, your typical home user isn't tweaking things, just installing the default setup.

    however, there are 'home users' who spend hundreds of dollars for a video card, for people like that, SSDs are very much within their price range.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    344

    Default The Larger Problem

    Which Distribution allows you to boot Reiser4 as the root file system?

    Butter has a file system converter.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlang View Post
    now if all you care about is 'your typical home user', then Phronix tests don't really matter much anyway, your typical home user isn't tweaking things, just installing the default setup.
    That's backwards. Phoronix ONLY tests the default setup. It's us tweakers to which the results don't apply.

    I wish he would test ext4 on a mechanical laptop drive with barrier=0, noatime vs relatime, and writeback vs ordered. Plus xfs with all the tweaks its fans recommend, and reiser4 with lzo compression enabled.

Posting Permissions

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