From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?iso-8859-2?B?o3VrYXN6IE1pZXJ6d2E=?= <prymitive@pcserwis.net>
Subject: Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:06:57 +0100
Message-ID: <op.s4c81vwld4os1z@acer>
References: <20060202225943.47804036.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-27989-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <20060202225943.47804036.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"; charset="iso-8859-1"
To: "reiserfs-list@namesys.com" <reiserfs-list@namesys.com>

Dnia Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:59:43 +0100, Adrian Ulrich =20
<reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> napisa=B3:

> If anyone is interested:
>  I ran a small filesystem benchmark on my x86 PC.
>
>  It includes:
>
>  On Linux:
>   * Reiser4
>   * ReiserFS
>   * Ext3
>
>  On Solaris (Using 'gnusolaris'[.org] -> Alpha 2)
>   * UFS
>   * ZFS
>
>
>  NetApp's 'Postmark' was used to perform the tests.
>  (Postmark simulates something like Mail/NNTP-Server load)
>
> Results:
>   http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt

Is it just me or did You also found out that reiser4 is "little" faster in =
=20
those tests?? ;) (Now I know why I'm using r4)

=A3ukasz Mierzwa