From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: r4 v. ext3, quick speed vs. cpu experiments Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 03:46:28 +0400 Message-ID: <3F3041D4.9050709@namesys.com> References: <3F303DA4.306@mrs.umn.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <3F303DA4.306@mrs.umn.edu> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Grant Miner Cc: reiserfs-list@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 pretty outdated.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