From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] ext2 v ext3 with contest
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 22:20:22 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200212242220.33049.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here's a contest run comparing 2.5.52-mm2 on the same osdl hardware with the
ext3 partitions mounted ext2 for comparison:
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 39.2 181 0 0 1.08
2552mm2ext2 [5] 39.1 180 0 0 1.08
not significant
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 36.5 194 0 0 1.01
2552mm2ext2 [5] 36.1 194 0 0 1.00
slight speedup here.
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 46.5 152 8 41 1.28
2552mm2ext2 [5] 48.3 144 10 48 1.33
slight shift in the balance; no significant change
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 52.8 154 1 10 1.46
2552mm2ext2 [5] 47.2 163 1 7 1.30
speedup with better overall cpu usage with ext2
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 76.1 124 1 8 2.10
2552mm2ext2 [5] 95.6 101 1 5 2.64
interesting - a shift in the opposite direction here with ext2 much slower
(large)
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 74.5 112 11 20 2.06
2552mm2ext2 [5] 77.4 118 11 13 2.14
same here
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 59.9 134 6 18 1.65
2552mm2ext2 [5] 52.8 137 6 11 1.46
slightly better with ext2
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 50.5 147 5 6 1.39
2552mm2ext2 [5] 49.3 149 5 6 1.36
slightly better ext2
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 43.7 167 0 9 1.21
2552mm2ext2 [5] 43.4 166 0 9 1.20
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 66.0 141 39 3 1.82
2552mm2ext2 [5] 63.9 145 38 3 1.76
slightly better here
It seems the (possibly?) faster writing with ext2 causes slowdowns under heavy
writing loads on the same disk, but improvements with the other loads.
Interesting results (not quite what I was expecting)
Enjoy the festive season
Cheers,
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+CEL2F6dfvkL3i1gRAq/1AJ4wsVsERAUng6ALtmpnMflpb8co0gCfTYWB
JzOrStkqsDGV/fC+21N69f8=
=pUSo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
reply other threads:[~2002-12-24 11:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=200212242220.33049.conman@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
/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
Powered by JetHome