Re: r4 v. ext3, quick speed vs. cpu experiments

[Grant Miner <mine0057@mrs.umn.edu>]

Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> How much memory you have? How big is mozilla-1.5a.tar? Did you include
> 'sync' in the tests? It seems reiser4 numbers are mostly in-memory
> operations and not all data flushed to disk while this is apparently not
> true for ext3. BTW, XFS numbers would be also/more interesting, ext[23] is
> pretty outdated.
> 
> BTW, from your numbers it seems ext3 gives better overall performance.
> 
> 	Szaka
> 
Good suggestion.  With ext3, 'sync' adds 10.2 seconds average to total
time (others about 1.6 sec).  Here is a list of averages, including sync
time.  Each fs was run 3 times.  Note that I did not count sync's cpu %
in cpu %.

xfs: average 44.3 seconds, 32% cpu
ext3: average 44.0 seconds, 27% cpu
r4: average 30.2 seconds, 39% cpu

I have 512MB memory.  File tree is about 295 MB.  This was just a "for
fun" test, and it probably not accurate.  I may try better ones later.