public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
To: Dax Kelson <dax@gurulabs.com>
Cc: Peter Nelson <pnelson@andrew.cmu.edu>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, ext3-users@redhat.com,
	jfs-discussion@oss.software.ibm.com, reiserfs-list@namesys.com,
	linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:30:54 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <40457B9E.3060706@namesys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1078266793.8582.24.camel@mentor.gurulabs.com>

Unfortunately it is a bit more complex, and the truth is less 
complementary to us than what you write.  Reiser4's CPU usage has come 
down a lot, but it still consumes more CPU than V3.  It should consume 
less, and Zam is currently working on making writes more CPU efficient.  
As soon as I get funding from somewhere and can stop worrying about 
money, I will do a complete code review, and CPU usage will go way 
down.  There are always lots of stupid little things that consume a lot 
of CPU that I find whenever I stop chasing money and review code.

We are shipping because CPU usage is not as important as IO efficiency 
for a filesystem, and while Reiser4 is not as fast as it will be in 3-6 
months, it is faster than anything else available so it should be shipped.

Hans

Dax Kelson wrote:

>On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 09:34, Peter Nelson wrote:
>  
>
>>Hans Reiser wrote:
>>
>>I'm confused as to why performing a benchmark out of cache as opposed to 
>>on disk would hurt performance?
>>    
>>
>
>My understanding (which could be completely wrong) is that reieserfs v3
>and v4 are algorithmically more complex than ext2 or ext3. Reiserfs
>spends more CPU time to make the eventual ondisk operations more
>efficient/faster.
>
>When operating purely or mostly out of ram, the higher CPU utilization
>of reiserfs hurts performance compared to ext2 and ext3.
>
>When your system I/O utilization exceeds cache size and your disks
>starting getting busy, the CPU time previously invested by reiserfs pays
>big dividends and provides large performance gains versus more
>simplistic filesystems.  
>
>In other words, the CPU penalty paid by reiserfs v3/v4 is more than made
>up for by the resultant more efficient disk operations. Reiserfs trades 
>CPU for disk performance.
>
>In a nutshell, if you have more memory than you know what do to with,
>stick with ext3. If you spend all your time waiting for disk operations
>to complete, go with reiserfs.
>
>Dax Kelson
>Guru Labs
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Hans



  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-03-03  6:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-03-02  4:46 Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 Peter Nelson
2004-03-02  7:23 ` Hans Reiser
2004-03-02 16:34   ` Peter Nelson
2004-03-02 22:33     ` Dax Kelson
2004-03-02 22:47       ` David Weinehall
2004-03-03  1:30         ` Andrew Ho
2004-03-03  1:41           ` David Weinehall
     [not found]             ` <20040303014115.GP19111@khan.acc.umu.se.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2004-03-03  2:39               ` Andi Kleen
2004-03-03  7:47                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-03-03  8:03                   ` Hans Reiser
2004-03-03  8:16                     ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-03-03  9:35                       ` Hans Reiser
2004-03-03  6:00             ` Robin Rosenberg
2004-03-03  9:43               ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-03-03  9:59                 ` Robin Rosenberg
2004-03-03 10:19                   ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-03-04  9:28                     ` Kristian Köhntopp
2004-03-05  1:59                     ` Clemens Schwaighofer
2004-03-03 10:24                   ` Mike Gigante
2004-03-03 13:14                     ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-03-03 14:16                       ` Hans Reiser
2004-03-03 13:42                   ` Hans Reiser
2004-03-03 10:13                 ` Olaf Frączyk
2004-03-03 13:07                   ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-03-04 14:37                 ` [Jfs-discussion] " Pascal Gienger
2004-03-04 20:43                   ` Per Andreas Buer
2004-03-03  6:30       ` Hans Reiser [this message]
2004-03-03 23:41     ` Johannes Stezenbach
2004-03-05 18:46       ` Pavel Machek
2004-03-06  0:16       ` Chris Mason
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-03-02 17:11 Ray Lee

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=40457B9E.3060706@namesys.com \
    --to=reiser@namesys.com \
    --cc=dax@gurulabs.com \
    --cc=ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=ext3-users@redhat.com \
    --cc=jfs-discussion@oss.software.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    --cc=pnelson@andrew.cmu.edu \
    --cc=reiserfs-list@namesys.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