Re: A few filesystem benchmarks w/ReiserFS4 vs Other Filesystems

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Alexander Lyamin wrote:

>Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 05:45:41PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>    
>>
>>>Execute rm -rf linux-2.6.8.1 on each file system.
>>># -------------------------------------------------------------------- #
>>>ext2 | 10.26 sec @ 22% cpu
>>>ext3 | 10.02 sec @ 25% cpu
>>>  jfs | 26.67 sec @ 27% cpu
>>>  rs3 | 03.22 sec @ 74% cpu
>>>  rs4 | 25.58 sec @ 50% cpu <- What happened to reiserfs4 here?
>>>  xfs | 12.51 sec @ 47% cpu
>>># -------------------------------------------------------------------- #
>>>Create a 500MB file with dd to each filesystem with 1MB blocks.
>>># -------------------------------------------------------------------- #
>>>ext2 | 15.72 sec @ 26% cpu
>>>ext3 | 17.04 sec @ 31% cpu
>>>  jfs | 29.57 sec @ 25% cpu
>>>  rs3 | 15.21 sec @ 27% cpu
>>>  rs4 | 23.96 sec @ 23% cpu <- What happened to reiserfs4 here?
>>>      
>>>
Do a dd of a 50GB file, I expect a completely different result.  
Basically, this is an artifact of reiser4 choosing to flush the whole 
file once it starts to flush.

>>>  xfs | 19.07 sec @ 29% cpu
>>>      
>>>
>
>Your answers somewhere in HCH's "silent semantics" thread.
>
>Basically reiserfs team aware that they do suck at file DELETES
>and OVERWRITES.  There seem to be a way to rectify this perfomance
>issues in future (dynamic repacker?). Altough i was somewhat surprised
>with this  dd file benchmark... probably Alexander Zarochentsev knows
>the answer.
>  
>