From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: ReiserFS 3.6.x vs Reiser4 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:39:18 -0800 Message-ID: <3DD03FA6.10005@namesys.com> References: <1951002912.20021111084143@kgpa.ru> <15823.50135.517241.494150@laputa.namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <1951002912.20021111084143@kgpa.ru> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Nikita Danilov Cc: "Oleg O. Ossovitskii" , ReiserFS-Team , Alexander Zarochentcev Nikita Danilov wrote: >Oleg O. Ossovitskii writes: > > Hello, All! > > > > I made simple FS comparision. From a user point of view - unpacking > > files, copying, deleting etc. Reiser4 is more space effectively, and > > it remove files faster than reiserfs3, but speed of copying many small files > > (kernel 2.5.44 source code) is approximately equal to reiserfs3.6. But > > of reiser4 reliability is still low. > > > > root@(vc/1)[/mnt/reiser4tst]# fdisk -l /dev/hda > > > > Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 4982 cylinders > > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes > > > > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System > > /dev/hda1 * 1 66 530113+ 6 FAT16 > > /dev/hda2 67 83 136552+ 82 Linux swap > > /dev/hda3 84 86 24097+ 83 Linux > > /dev/hda4 87 4981 39319087+ f Win95 Ext'd (LBA) > > /dev/hda5 87 405 2562336 7 HPFS/NTFS > > /dev/hda6 406 1425 8193118+ 7 HPFS/NTFS > > /dev/hda7 1426 2190 6144831 83 Linux > > /dev/hda8 2191 2321 1052226 83 Linux > > /dev/hda9 2322 2582 2096451 b Win95 FAT32 > > /dev/hda10 2583 3220 5124703+ b Win95 FAT32 > > /dev/hda11 3221 4495 10241406 7 HPFS/NTFS > > /dev/hda12 4496 4619 995998+ 83 Linux > > /dev/hda13 4620 4743 995998+ 83 Linux > > > > > > /dev/hda12 is Reiser4 > > /dev/hda13 is ReiserFs 3.6.25 > > > > root@(vc/1)[/mnt/reiser4tst]# df -ah . > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > > /dev/hda12 973M 29M 944M 3% /mnt/reiser4tst > > > > root@(vc/1)[/mnt/reiser3tst]# df -ah . > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > > /dev/hda13 973M 61M 912M 6% /mnt/reiser3tst > > > > Tests description: > > 1. unpacking linux-2.5.44.tar.bz2 > > $ ls -l linux-2.5.44.tar.bz2 > > 29260 > > 2. cp -Rd linux-2.5.44 linux-2.5.44-test1 > Please create the tarball from a reiser4 directory and repeat the benchmark if you could. Your results are completely inconsistent with Zam's as far as I understand them. Zam, please reproduce and comment. > > 3. du -sk linux-2.5.44 > > 4. rm -rf linux-2.5.44-tst1 > > 5. rm -rf linux-2.5.44 > > > > -------------+--------------------+--------------------- > > Test number | ReiserFS 3.6.25 | Reiser4 > > 1 | 1m22.868s | 1m24.153s > > 2 | 1m24.127s | 1m23.050s > > 3 | 0m5.727s/183656k | 0m3.706s/157401k > > 4 | 0m9.896s | 0m3.185s(*) > > 5 | 0m6.921s | 0m33.011s > > -------------+--------------------+--------------------- > > (*) rm couldn't remove directories recursively, and gave warnings/errors: > > rm: cannot remove directory `linux-2.5.44-tst1/arch/um': Directory not empty > > rm: cannot remove directory `linux-2.5.44-tst1/arch/x86_64': Directory not empty > > ... and so on > >Are there any messages in the kernel log at this time? Can you reproduce >this with CONFIG_REISER4_CHECK/Assertions on? > > > After that Reiser4 partition stay unmountable and have unremovable > > directories till reboot > > After reboot directories was succesfully removed, but they still contained > > files > >You mean, rm still complains about not empty directories? Can you please >check whether they actually *are*? > >It would be great if you could reproduce it and send to me >(personally---too large for list) strace of failing rm. > > > Test #5 done after reboot - I got significant Reiser4 slowdown > > > > --- Sys info --- > > # uname -a > >Nikita. > > > >