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

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Grant Miner wrote:

> 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 pretty outdated.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.
>
>
>
>
Expect the CPU time to drop a lot, because we first got rid of the IO 
consuming kruft, now we are getting rid of the CPU consuming kruft.

That is, expect it to drop up until we ship a compression plugin.....

Can you post your numbers on lkml also?

-- 
Hans