From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: Benchmarks from Guru Labs Date: 18 Jul 2002 08:24:25 -0400 Message-ID: <1026995065.2486.5.camel@tiny> References: <20020718115327.GE3841@ariel.karmak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: In-Reply-To: <20020718115327.GE3841@ariel.karmak.org> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Michael Carmack Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 07:53, Michael Carmack wrote: > > I didn't see any mention of this in the archives. There are some > ReiserFS benchmarks at > > http://www.gurulabs.com/ext3-reiserfs.html > > The first set of tests (for small files) show a significant performance > advantage with 'notail' turned on. Assuming disk space is not an issue, > are there any performance advantages to 'notail' that are not reflected > in these tests? notail is faster in most cases. With some tail tuning, tails could be faster for synchronous applications (like mail servers) when the file size is <= blocksize. This is because flushing the tail to disk would be free with flushing the new inode information. > > Also, can anyone comment on why Ext3 has a significant edge over ReiserFS > in the small-file tests, but the situation reverses as file-size > increases? There's not much commentary in the article. Getting good consistent results out of postmark is tricky. Notice that between the 2nd and 3rd tests, he changed 3 different postmark variables (file size, number of files, number of transactions). What I can say is that we've been doing performance fixes for reiserfs for a while now, and some of them are really coming together. Many will go into 2.4.20-pre. -chris