Re: First benchmarks of the ext4 file system

["Linux Portal" <linportal@gmail.com>]

On 10/23/06, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 01:57:36AM +0200, Linux Portal wrote:
> > ext4 is 20 percent faster writer than ext3 or reiser4, probably thanks
> > to extents and delayed allocation. On other tests it is either
> > slightly faster or slightly slower. reiser4 comes as a nice surprise,
> > winning few benchmarks. Both are very stable, no errors during
> > testing.
>
> As Andrew has already pointed out, we don't have delayed allocation
> merged in into the -mm tree yet.

OK.

> If you have the
> time/energy/interest, a very useful thing that would very much help
> the filesystem developers of all filesystems to do would be to
> automated your tesitng enough that you can do these tests on a
> frequent basis, both to track regressions caused by changes in other
> parts of the kernel, as well we to see what happens as various bits of
> functionality get added to the filesystem.  This of course can become
> an arbitrarily a huge amount of work, as you add more filesystems and
> benchmarks, but it's the sort of thing which is incredibly useful
> especially if the hardware is held constant across a large number of
> filesystems, workloads/benchmarks, and kernel versions.
>

I agree completely. That was my original idea, to prepare some setup for
thorough testing, but I soon discovered that would really be a huge project,
because of so many parameters involved.

So, at this time, I just satisfied my curiosity ;) with few simple tests of the
early version of ext4. We'll see what the future brings (how much free
time, in the first place ;)).

Best regards,