linux-embedded.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: tim.bird@am.sony.com, jamie@shareable.org,
	Linux Embedded <linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@soe.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Pramfs: Persistent and protected ram filesystem
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:33:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A47A94E.4020808@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090628085932.GA20169@elf.ucw.cz>

Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>>> Ah now the write protection is a "needed feature", in your previous
>>>>> comment you talked about why not use ext2/3.......
>>>>>
>>>>> Marco
>>>>>
>>>> Just for your information I tried the same test with pc in a virtual machine with 32MB of RAM:
>>>>
>>>> Version 1.03e       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
>>>>                     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
>>>> Machine   Size:chnk K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
>>>> hostname     15M:1k 14156  99 128779 100 92240 100 11669 100 166242  99 80058  82
>>>>                     ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
>>>>                     -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
>>>>               files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
>>>>                   4  2842  99 133506 104 45088 101  2787  99 79581 101 58212 102
>>>>
>>>> These data are the proof of the importance of the environment, workload and so on when we talk
>>>> about benchmark. Your consideration are really superficial.
>>> Unfortunately, your numbers are meaningless.
>> I don't think so.
>>
>>> (PCs should have cca 3GB/sec RAM transfer rates; and you demosstrated
>>> cca 166MB/sec read rate; disk is 80MB/sec, so that's too slow. If you
>>> want to prove your filesystem the filesystem is reasonably fast,
>>> compare it with ext2 on ramdisk.)
>>>
>> This is the point. I don't want compare it with ext2 from performance
>> point of view. This comparison makes no sense for me. I've done this
>> test to prove that if you change environment you can change in a
>> purposeful way the results.
> 
> Yes, IOW you demonstrated that the numbers are machine-dependend and
> really meaningless.
> 
> ext2 comparison would tell you how much pramfs sucks (or not).
> 									Pavel

Here the test with ext2 (same environment):

Version 1.03e       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
                    -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine   Size:chnk K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
hostname     15M:1k 10262  83 40847  82 38574  82  9866  92 62252  98 25204  81
                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
              files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
                  1 19859  98 44804  61 68830 100 13566  99 157129 100 30431  98

Marco

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-06-28 17:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <4a4254e2.09c5660a.109d.46f8@mx.google.com>
2009-06-24 16:49 ` [PATCH 00/14] Pramfs: Persistent and protected ram filesystem Marco
2009-06-24 17:38   ` Marco
2009-06-24 17:59     ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-25  6:30       ` Marco Stornelli
2009-06-28  8:59         ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-28 16:44           ` Marco Stornelli
2009-06-28 17:33           ` Marco Stornelli [this message]
2009-07-09 23:42             ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-24 17:46   ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-13 13:20 Marco
2009-06-13 13:41 ` Daniel Walker
2009-06-13 15:59 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-06-14  7:15   ` Marco
2009-06-14 11:08     ` Artem Bityutskiy
2009-06-15 15:51       ` Bryan Henderson
2009-06-15 17:42         ` Marco
2009-06-14 11:46     ` Jamie Lokier
2009-06-14 16:04       ` Marco
2009-06-16 15:07         ` Jamie Lokier
2009-06-16 19:15           ` Marco
2009-06-24 17:41             ` Jamie Lokier
2009-06-25  6:44               ` Marco Stornelli
2009-06-26 11:30                 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-06-26 16:56                   ` Marco
2009-06-24 14:21                     ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-21  6:40     ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-21 17:34       ` Marco
2009-06-21 20:52         ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-22  6:33           ` Marco Stornelli
2009-06-22 17:20             ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-22 17:31               ` Tim Bird
2009-06-22 17:37                 ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-22 18:07                   ` Marco
2009-06-22 20:40                     ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2009-06-22 20:40                     ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-22 21:50                       ` Tim Bird
2009-06-22 21:57                         ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-22 22:38                           ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-22 23:26                             ` Chris Friesen
2009-06-23  1:42                               ` David VomLehn
2009-06-23 18:07                           ` Marco
2009-06-23 18:29                             ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-24 17:47                               ` Jamie Lokier
2009-06-25  6:32                                 ` Marco Stornelli
2009-06-22 18:55                   ` Tim Bird
2009-06-22 21:02                     ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-22 22:02                       ` Tim Bird
2009-06-22 18:08                 ` Marco
2009-06-15 17:15 ` Tim Bird
2009-06-15 17:44   ` Marco
2009-06-15 17:58     ` Tim Bird
2009-06-17 18:32 ` Chris Friesen
2009-06-18  6:35   ` Marco Stornelli

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4A47A94E.4020808@gmail.com \
    --to=marco.stornelli@gmail.com \
    --cc=dwalker@soe.ucsc.edu \
    --cc=jamie@shareable.org \
    --cc=linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=tim.bird@am.sony.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).