Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: File System Benchmarks in Linux

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Amazing, I never would have imagined that a file system thread could mutate into a religious discussion. Yes, the movie you are looking for is "Conspiracy Theory", and yes, there is much Zionism in America. There is, however, no evidence to show that Reiser's jailing is a result of Microsoft's (and the Jews') actions. Reiser's jailing is much more likely the result of our flawed judicial system (or, unfortunately, but less likely, a very large mistake on his part).

    Furthermore, if the exclusion of reiserfs4 from the mainline kernel is an attempt to keep us from a revolutionary file system, then why aren't ext4 and zfs being censored, and their creators being thrown in jail. Therefore, it is much more likely that the reiserfs4 file system was excluded due to laziness, technicalities, or misunderstandings.

    I agree that ext4 is no more ready for the kernel that reiserfs4. The solution to quicker maturity, of course, is to include both in the kernel to allow easier testing. I hope reiserfs4 is soon accepted by the kernel developers for this reason. Until then we will have to do the work of patching the new kernels ourselves in order to test the latest and greatest file systems against those which we are accustom to.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    98

    Default

    You guys better be careful, I hear the Men In Black coming - lmao.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

    petabyte said:"if the exclusion of reiserfs4 from the mainline kernel is an attempt to keep us from a revolutionary file system, then why aren't ext4 and zfs being censored"

    Gee,.. you ask easy questions:

    1) ext4 is not even close to being as good, or as stable, as Reiser4 (I ran some tests, ext4 sux).
    2) zfs isn't part of Linux (maybe you could help and port it from Solaris).

    To make things explicit: Why censor things that people will not (want to) use anyway?


    petabyte said:"I agree that ext4 is no more ready for the kernel that reiserfs4."

    WRONG. REISER4 is easily ready for inclusion. EXT4 is NOT.

    Here are the results for EXT4, with 2.6.20 kernel (drivers), and SuSE 10.0.

    Code:
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Filesystem | Copy Sources | Disk Usage | Copy Sources | Tar & Gzip | Untar & Unzip | Delete All | kernel
    |            | Across       |    (MB)    | Within       | Sources    | Sources       | (seconds)  |
    |            | Partitions   |            | Partition    | (seconds)  | (seconds)     |            |
    |            | (seconds)    |            | (seconds)    |            |               |            |
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | REISER4    |          148 |        692 |           55 |         68 |            27 |         52 | 2.6.13-15-default
    |   tails    |           83 |        673 |           91 |         91 |            38 |         82 | 2.6.20-rc6-mm3
    | EXT2       |          204 |        816 |           81 |         73 |            40 |         24 | 2.6.13-15-default
    | EXT3       |          181 |        816 |           77 |         77 |            46 |         26 | 2.6.13-15-default
    | EXT4       |          251 |        806 |          125 |        109 |            93 |         47 | 2.6.20
    |   extents  |          223 |        793 |          196 |        178 |            86 |        118 | 2.6.20
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The comparison is not too accurate as different kernels were used.

    Strangely, my customized 2.6.20 kernels ran consistently slower (about 7%) than the 2.6.13-15-default SuSE 10.0 kernel (even though 2.6.13-15 was compiled only with generic x86-64 support and the 2.6.20 had AMD Athlon64 support, etc, etc).

    There seems to be a fair amount of randomness in the figures.

    When I get time I might run the script ten, or so, times and average out the results.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

    So, what is the accepted way of stopping other processes running (and effecting the results) while doing these filesystem tests?

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade View Post
    So, what is the accepted way of stopping other processes running (and effecting the results) while doing these filesystem tests?
    I guess not using a DE for one thing would be the first step, and them making sure you don't have a bunch of system services at boot time. Shouldn't be that difficult, really.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade View Post
    petabyte said:"if the exclusion of reiserfs4 from the mainline kernel is an attempt to keep us from a revolutionary file system, then why aren't ext4 and zfs being censored"

    Gee,.. you ask easy questions:

    1) ext4 is not even close to being as good, or as stable, as Reiser4 (I ran some tests, ext4 sux).
    Hearsay.

    2) zfs isn't part of Linux (maybe you could help and port it from Solaris).
    I didn't suggest it is part of linux. I was only comparing potentially great file systems.

    To make things explicit: Why censor things that people will not (want to) use anyway?
    More hearsay.
    petabyte said:"I agree that ext4 is no more ready for the kernel that reiserfs4."
    WRONG. REISER4 is easily ready for inclusion. EXT4 is NOT.
    Please do not act as if your corrections are the absolute fact; colorful font and the information the colorful font conveys are two different things entirely. You've presented some questionable performance tests, and thats it. This is unrelated to my claims. Maturity and stability are much more valid when analyzing what should and shouldn't be included in the kernel. I'm a big reiserfs fan too, but please don't perpetuate trolliness.
    Last edited by petabyte; 02-18-2007 at 06:54 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

    http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm

    Code:
    .----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
    | Filesystem    | Copy Sources | Disk Usage | Copy Sources | Tar & Gzip | Unzip & Untar | Delete All |
    | Kernel        | Across       |    (MB)    | Within       | Sources    | Sources       | (seconds)  |
    |               | Partitions   |            | Partition    | (seconds)  | (seconds)     |            |
    |               | (seconds)    |            | (seconds)    |            |               |            |
    .----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
    |REISER4 2.6.13 |           148|         692|            55|          67|             25|          56|
    |REISER4 2.6.20 |           151|         692|            85|          81|             32|          65|
    | tails  2.6.13 |           148|         673|            63|          78|             33|          65|
    | tails  2.6.20 |           155|         673|            99|          81|             41|          79|
    |NTFS-3g 2.6.13 |          1333|         772|          1426|         585|            767|        194+|
    |NTFS-3g 2.6.20 |          1153|         772|          1488|         597|            844|        195+|
    |NTFS    WIN XP |           781|         779|           173|           X|              X|           X|
    |REISER3 2.6.13 |           184|         793|            98|          85|             63|          22|
    |REISER3 2.6.20 |           182|         793|           103|          81|             65|          23|
    |XFS     2.6.13 |           220|         799|           173|         119|             90|         106|
    |XFS     2.6.20 |           210|         799|           159|         109|             89|          88|
    |JFS     2.6.13 |           228|         806|           202|          95|             97|         127|
    |JFS     2.6.20 |           226|         806|           216|          95|            100|         133|
    |EXT4    2.6.20 |           174|         816|            70|          74|             42|          50|
    | extent 2.6.20 |           162|         806|            55|          69|             36|          32|
    |EXT3    2.6.13 |           182|         816|            74|          73|             43|          51|
    |EXT3    2.6.20 |           177|         816|            62|          76|             41|          47|
    |EXT2    2.6.13 |           201|         816|            82|          73|             39|          67|
    |EXT2    2.6.20 |           172|         816|            72|          72|             37|          52|
    |FAT32   2.6.13 |           253|         988|           158|         118|             81|          95|
    |FAT32   2.6.20 |           207|         988|           105|          97|             88|          57|
    .----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
    http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    One day I'll reach Alaska, or die trying!
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Desktop: ext4.
    Server: XFS, and perhaps one day when it's ported, ZFS.

    Don't waste your time or energy with other useless FS unless you run some exotic setup like clusters etc.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Don't waste your time or energy with anything other than REISER4 (with gzip or lzo compression).

    SMASHES the competition.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade View Post
    Don't waste your time or energy with anything other than REISER4 (with gzip or lzo compression).

    SMASHES the competition.
    I'm all for using the best filesystem if it is available, but this type of black and white (or should we say red) argument you are attempting to make (rather poorly) is not the way to sway people over to your way of thinking. Even if you've done tests that show reiserFS is the be-all-end-all of filesystems, other people have assuredly done more involved tests that show ext does better than reiser under certain circumstances.

    Two things:
    1) there is no greatest filesystem that is better than all others
    2) lose the red font color

Posting Permissions

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