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

[Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>]

Thanks for the feedback.

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, 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?
>>>   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.
> -- 
> "the liberation loophole will make it clear.."
> lex lyamin
>