From: Anthony Wesley <awesley@acquerra.com.au>
To: nate.diller@gmail.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel 2.6.13 buffer strangeness - ext2/3/reiser4/xfs comparison
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:23:51 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4322B437.3010309@acquerra.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5c49b0ed05090922021b8f8112@mail.gmail.com>
Nate Diller wrote:
> i really recommend you focus on getting better disk bandwidth, you stand
> to gain a lot more from that approach. i presume you're on ext3;
> perhaps you should try reiser4 or xfs, they are more likely to meet your
> disk bandwidth requirements.
>
> NATE
While I have already solved the issue that was troubling me, I also spent some time comparing different
filesystems as reccommended by Nate, with interesting results.
My method was simple - make a filesystem and the set it as the target for my video capture. With video
coming in at 25MBytes/sec and going out to disk at about 15-20MBytes/sec it is an interesting test of the
vm and filesystem.
I compared ext2,ext3,xfs,vfat,reiser and reiser4.
The hands-down winner was ext2. All the others showed problems of either lower disk throughput
or dropped frames during video capture.
Only ext2 went the full distance - no dropped frames until we run out of RAM, and good disk throughput.
xfs,reiser and reiser4 had slightly higher disk write speed, but showed performance problems
that caused lots of dropped frames so they must be ruled out at this stage.
I know that xfs and reiser4 are supposed to be faster for some things, but it seems to me that they
are not the best choice when you are predominantly writing lots and lots of 600k files :-)
regards, Anthony
--
Anthony Wesley
Director and IT/Network Consultant
Smart Networks Pty Ltd
Acquerra Pty Ltd
Anthony.Wesley@acquerra.com.au
Phone: (02) 62595404 or 0419409836
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-10 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-09 9:11 kernel 2.6.13 buffer strangeness Anthony Wesley
2005-09-09 15:09 ` Roger Heflin
2005-09-09 21:39 ` Nate Diller
2005-09-10 0:16 ` Anthony Wesley
2005-09-10 0:35 ` Nate Diller
2005-09-10 1:07 ` Anthony Wesley
2005-09-10 1:47 ` Nate Diller
2005-09-10 2:23 ` Anthony Wesley
[not found] ` <5c49b0ed05090922021b8f8112@mail.gmail.com>
2005-09-10 5:32 ` Anthony Wesley
2005-09-10 6:02 ` kernel 2.6.13 buffer strangeness - FIXED Anthony Wesley
2005-09-10 10:23 ` Anthony Wesley [this message]
2005-09-10 11:42 ` kernel 2.6.13 buffer strangeness - ext2/3/reiser4/xfs comparison Andrew Morton
2005-09-10 11:56 ` Anthony Wesley
2005-09-10 0:50 ` kernel 2.6.13 buffer strangeness Anthony Wesley
2005-09-10 5:41 ` Andrew Morton
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=4322B437.3010309@acquerra.com.au \
--to=awesley@acquerra.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nate.diller@gmail.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