All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris@redhat.com>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 01:18:48 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200302010118.48446.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301310907250.893-100000@devel.capslock.lan>

On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 1:09 am, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >Using the osdl hardware (http://www.osdl.org) with contest
> >(http://contest.kolivas.net) I've conducted a set of benchmarks with
> >different filesystems. Note that contest does not claim to be a throughput
> >benchmark.
> >
> >All of these use kernel 2.5.59
> >
> >First a set of contest benchmarks with the io load on a different hard
> > disk containing each of the four filesystems:
> >
> >io_other:
> >Kernel [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
> >2559ext3    3   89      84.3    2       5.5     1.13
> >2559reiser  3   87      86.2    2       5.7     1.10
> >2559jfs     3   87      86.2    3       5.7     1.10
> >2559xfs     3   87      86.2    2       4.5     1.10
> >
> >I found it interesting that there is virtually no difference in kernel
> >compilation time with all fs. However jfs consistently wrote more during
> > the io load than the other fs.
> >
> >
> >This is a set of benchmarks with the kernel compilation and load all
> > performed on each of the fs:
>
> Compilation is inherently CPU bound, not disk I/O bound, so
> compiling the kernel (or anything for that matter) isn't going to
> show any difference really because the CPU Mhz and L1/L2 cache
> are the bottleneck.

When the io load is on another hard disk yes, however the results do show 
differences when the load is on the same hard disk - these are two different 
tests. There is more to kernel compilation than just cpu usage.

  reply	other threads:[~2003-01-31 14:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-01-31 13:20 [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest Con Kolivas
2003-01-31 13:37 ` Hans Reiser
2003-01-31 13:40   ` Con Kolivas
2003-01-31 13:56     ` Hans Reiser
2003-01-31 14:15       ` Con Kolivas
2003-01-31 15:21       ` Dave Jones
2003-01-31 16:40         ` Hans Reiser
2003-01-31 16:47           ` Dave Jones
2003-01-31 17:11             ` Hans Reiser
2003-01-31 19:04   ` Andrew Morton
2003-01-31 19:29     ` Hans Reiser
2003-01-31 22:21       ` Con Kolivas
2003-01-31 23:18         ` Con Kolivas
2003-02-01  0:19         ` David Lang
2003-01-31 14:09 ` Mike A. Harris
2003-01-31 14:18   ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-01-31 15:00   ` Maciej Soltysiak
2003-02-01  0:12 ` Con Kolivas

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200302010118.48446.conman@kolivas.net \
    --to=conman@kolivas.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mharris@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.