From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Zarochentsev Subject: Re: mongo benchmark results Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:43:15 +0400 Message-ID: <20040726084315.GA4881@backtop.namesys.com> References: <20040726055047.E145F15C29@mail03.powweb.com> <4104A933.7020509@namesys.com> <16644.49106.254644.433410@laputa.namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16644.49106.254644.433410@laputa.namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Nikita Danilov Cc: Hans Reiser , David Dabbs , reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:24:50PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote: > Hans Reiser writes: > > David Dabbs wrote: > > > > >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? > > > > > > > > Increase file_size to 8k, and then we can compare. This will reduce > > reiser4's space savings from 19% to 9%, but it will probably increase > > performance. > > > > Your work had a remarkable effect on the create phase. Very good work. > > I don't know why the impact was not larger for the stats phase. > > Isn't this strange that changes to the key comparison function > improved _real_ time more than _cpu_ time? cpu time is hidden :) A foreground process may just wait, when pdflush does all work. We can't measure it by time(1). > > I don't understand this. > > Nikita. > -- Alex.