From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rwhron@earthlink.net Subject: Re: best reiserfs mount options for generic benchmarking Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 12:47:55 -0400 Message-ID: <20020914164755.GA12387@rushmore> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: russell@coker.com.au Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com > Why? Mainly for the reiserfs developers benefit. Hans expressed some interest in the numbers. Also, if the tests take less time, I can run more of them. :) I've changed the partition reiserfs runs on. That means comparison with earlier runs is less valid. Hans got me thinking the benchmarks may be helpful for reiserfs developers, so I want to cater to what is most useful for them. > the best thing to benchmark is the way you really use a system. The mount options I typically use are noatime,notail,nodev,nosuid. > If you have files that grow by small chunks but which are on average quite > large then you will probably want to mount notails as it won't save any > significant amount of space but can cost performance. If you have any > typical disk usage for home directories or maildir's then you'll want tails. Thanks! A "real world" workload I'm interested in is: * 100k - 2mb files typically created by copy or parsed into existence. * Thousands of files in a directory, multiple big directories. * files are typically accessed somewhat randomly and read in their entirety. and * I/O to large statically sized files (database reads/writes). The benchmarks are meant to be a community contribution, rather than an evaluation of what's best for a workload I have. -- Randy Hron http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html