From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thunker.thunk.org (thunk.org [69.25.196.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l6V2fsbm000794 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:41:56 -0700 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:41:44 -0400 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5 Message-ID: <20070731024144.GC25876@thunk.org> References: <200707302207.02672.a1426z@gawab.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: a1426z@gawab.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:39:39PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest. > > > > Are you sure these numbers are correct? > > Note, that %cpu numbers for fuse filesystems are inherently skewed, > because the CPU usage of the filesystem process itself is not taken > into account. > > So the numbers are not all that good, but according to the zfs-fuse > author it hasn't been optimized yet, so they may improve. Also, something which is data i/o intensive is going to be the best case for a FUSE filesystem. If you try something which is much more metadata intensive (i.e., lots of file creates and deletes, chmods, etc.) like say with a Postmark benchmark, you would almost certainly get very different results. That's not to say that bonnie++ benchmarks aren't useful, but when doing comparisons between filesystems, it's a good idea to use a wide variety of benchmarks to avoid getting potentially misleading results. - Ted