From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Miner Subject: Re: r4 v. ext3, quick speed vs. cpu experiments Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:28:36 -0500 Message-ID: <3F303DA4.306@mrs.umn.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com 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 pretty outdated.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.