Not an Ubuntu user, so a small question: Do I have to expect that the Ubuntu kernel will be patched in a way that I can see differences in filesystem performance compared to a stock kernel from kernel.org? If so, wouldn't it make sense to also put the stock kernel into those benchmarks?
Or is there any other reason to test specifically the Ubuntu kernel and not a stock one, besides having Ubuntu in the title of the article for getting more page-hits from Ubuntu users?
With lots of Linux pundits declaring recently that Ubuntu is the future of the Linux desktop, I think the majority of us who don't use Ubuntu simply don't count anymore. :-( It's gotten to the point where Lifehacker articles with titles like "How to customize your Linux desktop" are actually about how to configure Unity in Ubuntu, Matt Hardy's article "Three Alternatives To Ubuntu" consists of three distros - Pear OS, Mint, Peppermint - derived from Ubuntu, etc. Just as Linux users are treated as second class citizens in the Windows-dominated world, so now are non-Ubuntu users treated in the Linux world. It's starting to get ridiculous and when I've broached the subject with some the Linux talking heads no one wants to open up a debate on the subject. :-( Unless the "silent majority" gain a voice and speak up soon and open up a discussion about what we want the future of Linux to be, especially if we want it to be dominated by any one interest, it's going to happen by default.
But on your specific point, I agree: I want to know how the file systems are currently running on the latest Linux kernel, not how they run on Ubuntu 12.10 beta and whatever kernel it's using.
On the bottom of Page 2, the result picture from the Test IOzone v3.405
(Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Read Performance) was added two times.
A simple Copy & Paste failure?
Can only be a hardware failure of the keyboard...
Could you add benchmarks that resemble the real world a bit more!? ..1MiB files are not small files.. 1KiB files are.. so extract the firefox source og linux kernel source to the drive and copy it out again and benchmark those. That's a real scenario, that would probably uncover weaknesses in Ext4!
I'm moving my installation to a new Vertex4 SSD right now from an old 250GiB WD. Both have Ext4 filesystems hdparm claims ~65MiB/second on the WD Sata drive, but copying the mozilla source gives me 500KiB/second.. Far from your fantasy theoretical numbers!
Hoping for more realistic benchmarks in the future!