From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: a1426z@gawab.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:41:44 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070731024144.GC25876@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1IFb5f-00006O-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:39:39PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest.
> >
> > Are you sure these numbers are correct?
>
> Note, that %cpu numbers for fuse filesystems are inherently skewed,
> because the CPU usage of the filesystem process itself is not taken
> into account.
>
> So the numbers are not all that good, but according to the zfs-fuse
> author it hasn't been optimized yet, so they may improve.
Also, something which is data i/o intensive is going to be the best
case for a FUSE filesystem. If you try something which is much more
metadata intensive (i.e., lots of file creates and deletes, chmods,
etc.) like say with a Postmark benchmark, you would almost certainly
get very different results. That's not to say that bonnie++
benchmarks aren't useful, but when doing comparisons between
filesystems, it's a good idea to use a wide variety of benchmarks to
avoid getting potentially misleading results.
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-31 2:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-30 14:29 bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5 Justin Piszcz
2007-07-30 18:28 ` Dan Williams
2007-07-30 21:13 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-07-30 19:07 ` Al Boldi
2007-07-30 19:39 ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-07-30 21:12 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-07-31 2:41 ` Theodore Tso [this message]
2007-07-30 20:11 ` Dave Kleikamp
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=20070731024144.GC25876@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=a1426z@gawab.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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.