From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [benchmark] seek optimization Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:50:07 +0200 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040715055007.GD9383@suse.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Szakacsits Szabolcs Cc: Bryan Henderson , Guy , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, 'Marcel Hilzinger' , 'Per Olofsson' , reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Wed, Jul 14 2004, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Bryan Henderson wrote: > > > A simpler experiment where you copy a file from a filesystem into > > oblivion would eliminate any seeks or other delays on the write side > > and any interaction between the two and leave just the seeks on the > > read side to measure. > > The intention was to point out seek elimination on the writer side ;-) > > > And that information seems like it would be more useful. Many > > applications simply read and use data; they don't copy it into another > > file > > Sure, and many other different kind of tests would be more useful, too. > But this experiment wasn't about those. Instead to point out, by a > relatively common tool in a common environment, that > > 1) The seek elimination of Reiser4 is true and quite well measurable. > Also its seek optimization is much better than any other major > filesystem's optimization on Linux. > > 2) Apparently the 2.6 kernel's IO scheduler has a performance problem. Which one did you test? -- Jens Axboe