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
next prev 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