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
next prev 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).