From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris@redhat.com>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 01:18:48 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200302010118.48446.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301310907250.893-100000@devel.capslock.lan>
On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 1:09 am, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >Using the osdl hardware (http://www.osdl.org) with contest
> >(http://contest.kolivas.net) I've conducted a set of benchmarks with
> >different filesystems. Note that contest does not claim to be a throughput
> >benchmark.
> >
> >All of these use kernel 2.5.59
> >
> >First a set of contest benchmarks with the io load on a different hard
> > disk containing each of the four filesystems:
> >
> >io_other:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2559ext3 3 89 84.3 2 5.5 1.13
> >2559reiser 3 87 86.2 2 5.7 1.10
> >2559jfs 3 87 86.2 3 5.7 1.10
> >2559xfs 3 87 86.2 2 4.5 1.10
> >
> >I found it interesting that there is virtually no difference in kernel
> >compilation time with all fs. However jfs consistently wrote more during
> > the io load than the other fs.
> >
> >
> >This is a set of benchmarks with the kernel compilation and load all
> > performed on each of the fs:
>
> Compilation is inherently CPU bound, not disk I/O bound, so
> compiling the kernel (or anything for that matter) isn't going to
> show any difference really because the CPU Mhz and L1/L2 cache
> are the bottleneck.
When the io load is on another hard disk yes, however the results do show
differences when the load is on the same hard disk - these are two different
tests. There is more to kernel compilation than just cpu usage.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-31 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-31 13:20 [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest Con Kolivas
2003-01-31 13:37 ` Hans Reiser
2003-01-31 13:40 ` Con Kolivas
2003-01-31 13:56 ` Hans Reiser
2003-01-31 14:15 ` Con Kolivas
2003-01-31 15:21 ` Dave Jones
2003-01-31 16:40 ` Hans Reiser
2003-01-31 16:47 ` Dave Jones
2003-01-31 17:11 ` Hans Reiser
2003-01-31 19:04 ` Andrew Morton
2003-01-31 19:29 ` Hans Reiser
2003-01-31 22:21 ` Con Kolivas
2003-01-31 23:18 ` Con Kolivas
2003-02-01 0:19 ` David Lang
2003-01-31 14:09 ` Mike A. Harris
2003-01-31 14:18 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-01-31 15:00 ` Maciej Soltysiak
2003-02-01 0:12 ` Con Kolivas
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=200302010118.48446.conman@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mharris@redhat.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