From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David Dabbs" Subject: mongo benchmark results Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:49:49 -0500 Message-ID: <20040726055047.E145F15C29@mail03.powweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com At http://dabbs.net/reiser4/mongo.html I've posted some benchmarks from my aging but available test box. All numbers were generated with the Namesys mm7 snapshot. The "A.INFO_R4=new" are results from a reiser4 with modified comparison functions as well as znode_contains_key_strict(). So, here are my questions: Do these results appear consistent with others' recent benchmarking? Should I be using particular mount options during benchmarking? I would think running mongo would be necessary to ensuring that reiser4 mods are 'safe,' but it is sufficient? Viz the prior question, is there a recommended test regimen or regression suite? I started to dig into mongo a bit and noticed that it does not appear to vary the file & dir _names_ it generates. Most appear to be ~7 characters long with a pattern of 'f' followed by some number. Isn't this a) atypical of file/dir name distribution and b) favorable to/biased towards the "short name" code? IOW, if R4_LARGE_KEYS is the default and all generated test file names' lengths < 15 characters, then the large file name code is not being covered or benchmarked. Perhaps I'm mixing apples and oranges (code coverage and benchmarking). Just curious, David