Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Reiser4 Benchmarked On Linux 3.5

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    Typically murders mail order wives and makes shitty defenses in court then gets beaten up badly in prison. Also, even if Hans Reiser didn't murder anyone, the kernel people NEVER liked him. We would have never seen Reiser4 becoming mainstream anyway, despite the fact that ReiserFS was so damn popular. I have a hunch, if it was developed more, it would be far ahead of any Linux filesystem speedwise (for desktop loads at least.)
    From what I've been able to gather he wanted to do several things that just didn't work/ broke compatibility with the traditional Linux and UNIX filesystems.

    Here's a taste of some of it.

    http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/reiser4.html

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by necro-lover View Post
    so why we don't use ZFS? (don't answer this was only a rhetorical question to show you how stupid it is to write about ZFS in this tropic.)
    Most distributions do not have first party support yet, although the number has been increasing. 5 distributions have first party support as of this year. That is up from 0 last year.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by necro-lover View Post
    so why we don't use ZFS? (don't answer this was only a rhetorical question to show you how stupid it is to write about ZFS in this tropic.)
    Q, it is "topic" not "tropic". Sorry for being OT, but you make this mistake all the time. And it also shows that you're Q, which you tried to hide so hard ;-)

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    Most distributions do not have first party support yet, although the number has been increasing. 5 distributions have first party support as of this year. That is up from 0 last year.
    Hi ryao,

    I got fed up with FreeBSD and support for certain SATA controllers, so I whopped the OS from the disk yesterday and put Gentoo on it.
    1. The Gentoo LiveCD 12.1 with ZFSOnLinux opened my existing pools without problems (once created with FreeBSD)
    2. install went fine (I didn't use ZFS as rootfs but ext4)
    3. all pools are available during boot and much better HW support with 3.4 Linux kernel

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    Most distributions do not have first party support yet, although the number has been increasing. 5 distributions have first party support as of this year. That is up from 0 last year.
    ..and the fact that it uses a fuckhuge amount of ram to work properly. 1gb minimum was it? Dedicated, only for ZFS at that.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    ..and the fact that it uses a fuckhuge amount of ram to work properly. 1gb minimum was it? Dedicated, only for ZFS at that.
    Here is his guide:
    https://github.com/ryao/zfs-overlay/...er/zfs-install
    With the option zfs_arc_max for the zfs module, you can restrict the amount of memory used for the cache.

    The big problem is with ZFS as rootfs on Linux, you cannot set this parameter as kernel commandline because the module cannot be included into the kernel (licence issues).

    It should not be less than 512MB and a good value is 1/4 of available memory.
    http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ZFS#Tweak

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,055

    Default

    Indeed. I'm *not* going to waste min(1/4, 512mb) of my RAM for some FS cache that can't be dropped.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Athens-Hellas
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Well guys in my opinion I have to say that I am impressed of the way a filesystem out of the kernel tree, maintained for years only by one person in his free time beats out the GREAT NEW btrfs at many tests and the only test showed significant weakness was the multi threaded IO tester which may indicate just a bug that is missed from the hobbyist maintainer it has.
    Also it shows significant performance upgrade from the classic ReiserFS and it is very significant that sometimes it beats out all other FSes!
    For me it deserves to enter the mainline tree as well as getting more attention by developers. I used to use ReiserFS in the past at SuSE distros and it never let me down back then.
    My comments about all tested FSes:
    -EXT4: The most complete package for now.
    -Btrfs: Much more said, much less we see in action.
    -XFS: Still on the podium!
    -ReiserFS: Obsolete.
    -Reiser4 : An unexpected good performer!

    I am sorry Michael but I have to disagree with you at the conclusion of the article about Btrfs and Reiser4.
    Btrfs still has not proved itself all those years being in heavy development furthermore in the way it is advertized as an FS for SSDs. Its grandpa XFS many times proves to be faster on both SSDs and HDDs.
    Reiser4 on the other hand was an unknown quantity but today we took a taste of its performance and was not bad at all!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    70

    Default

    i would rather see more development in Reiser4 than on BTRFS.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1

    Default

    strange benchmark logs. where is the command used for creating reiser4?
    if during creation the flavour cryptcompress was chosen, maybe even with always-compress, it's an unfair comparison. this would explain why it performs so poorly in multithreading: all processors (especially on intel the "cores") are occupied with number-crunching for the compression.
    or did the other filesystems have some compression feature turned on too? on ssd compression might be a bad idea anyway...

Posting Permissions

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