From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Why is Reiser4 slower then ReiserFS v3 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:34:47 -0800 Message-ID: <41D1D177.4080800@namesys.com> References: <231dafb5041227123867a2c873@mail.gmail.com> <200412272353.iBRNrUcv002561@turing-police.cc.vt.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: <200412272353.iBRNrUcv002561@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Dark Shadow , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:38:12 MST, Dark Shadow said: > > > >>I have three hard drives so I took a file from one and copied it to >>the others and timed it >>source drive /dev/hda Reiser3 Western Digital 40gb 7200rpm >>target1 drive /dev/hdb Reiser4 Western Digital 80gb 7200rpm >>target2 drive /dev/sda Reiser3 Seagate 160gb 7200rpm (SATA but still >>same rpm as rest so it should be the same) >> >> > >You may wish to run 'hdparm -T -t' on each drive and see what the *raw* speed >is. All drives are not created equal... ;) > > This is correct. You should see negligible difference between the two for large files on the same drive. Deletions however, see next email.... >>time cp ~/800mb.file /target1 >>real 0m41.409s >>user 0m0.010s >>sys 0m4.364s >> >> > > > >>time cp ~/800mb.file /target2 >>real 0m38.318s >>user 0m0.017s >>sys 0m5.627s >> >> > >Similarly, you should try each one 3-5 times and get an average (for >starters, if you have more than 800M of memory, the second time around it >may all still be in cache, so the second time gets a hot-cache boost). It >may be useful to run the command once and *ignore* its times, and then >re-run the command 3 times and average those results (so all 3 times you >actually *use* start from the same "previous command just finished" cache state). > >