View previous topic :: View next topic |
Please READ the tables,next for which fs You want to switch ? :) |
ext3 |
|
26% |
[ 68 ] |
jfs |
|
10% |
[ 26 ] |
reiser3 |
|
17% |
[ 44 ] |
reiser4 |
|
35% |
[ 91 ] |
xfs |
|
9% |
[ 25 ] |
|
Total Votes : 254 |
|
Author |
Message |
fallow Bodhisattva


Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 2206 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:51 am Post subject: Filesystems comparison for present time (r4,r3,jfs,xfs,ext3) |
|
|
Hey.
Yeah . Propably many of You like reiser4 and etc. This thread is not to discuss who are liking it and the reason of liking it or not liking it Im a user of filesystem . I did a simple test to compare a simple things which I doing day by day on my box.
Why ?
I was used reiser4 for a long time. And I was not happy because of some things. I Switched to reiser3. Im not 100% happy because of high cpu usage with it. (dont ask me for reiser4 . In the past I used ext2 and ext3 with the redhat for a long time, also jfs and xfs on Gentoo. JFS code has some improvements and I wanted to see what is the current situation at present time.
so . this is a results .
my box : AMD 1.0 Athlon , 256 MB Ram
HDD used for tests IBM
hdd: IC35L040AVVA07-0, ATA DISK drive
hdd: max request size: 128KiB
hdd: 80418240 sectors (41174 MB) w/1863KiB Cache, CHS=65535/16/63, UDMA(100)
all tests with the same kernel , IngoSched ,CFQ-TS IO Scheduler , and latest versions of all fs code.
1. FIRST - bonnie++ test (remember that us is smaller than ms , so better in latency )
Code: |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bonnie++ -u root /mnt/t
Version 1.93c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
reiser4 496M 83 98 33536 23 17221 20 120 99 25225 32 185.8 10
reiser3 496M 167 99 33760 28 16974 13 594 99 38790 17 191.4 7
jfs 496M 399 97 34165 19 17232 10 636 98 38967 14 192.5 5
xfs 496M 228 98 35612 20 16558 12 416 98 39085 16 116.1 3
ext3 496M 139 99 33906 33 16618 13 551 98 38555 15 187.8 6
reiser4-lat 157ms 2749ms 874ms 76953us 10684us 3401ms
reiser3-lat 64610us 1231ms 226ms 23227us 22063us 963ms
jfs-lat 24487us 655ms 160ms 42963us 99906us 708ms
xfs-lat 39552us 1954ms 159ms 47486us 35691us 554ms
ext3-lat 67131us 1215ms 249ms 48126us 99742us 798ms
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version 1.93c ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
Enterprise -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
reiser4 16 17829 90 +++++ +++ 8190 98 8174 95 +++++ +++ 8307 98
reiser3 16 11570 89 +++++ +++ 10999 98 11402 91 +++++ +++ 9970 98
jfs 16 3569 16 +++++ +++ 2177 11 1349 17 +++++ +++ 1023 9
xfs 16 2461 35 +++++ +++ 2203 27 2429 35 +++++ +++ 884 13
ext3 16 816 98 +++++ +++ 24692 77 780 97 +++++ +++ 2256 96
reiser4-lat 2820us 8955us 9138us 2976us 127us 3365us
reiser3-lat 8458us 3623us 4707us 3648us 134us 2846us
jfs-lat 61168us 1374us 182ms 248ms 134us 1491ms
xfs-lat 118ms 291us 119ms 108ms 215us 135ms
ext3-lat 37327us 205us 2779us 36279us 1161us 65357us
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Now a copying kernel_sources and deleting it test
Code: |
time cp -r /usr/src/linux-2.6.12-rc2 /mnt/t
reiser4 real 0m49.015s
reiser3 real 1m1.828s
jfs real 0m58.990s
xfs real 1m1.678s
ext3 real 0m48.338s
time rm -r /mnt/t/linux-2.6.12-rc2
reiser4 real 0m7.663s
reiser3 real 0m2.308s
jfs real 0m13.117s
xfs real 0m16.872s
ext3 real 0m1.896s |
3. and copying and deleting some livecd also Code: |
time cp -r /hdd-livecd/ /mnt/t
reiser4 real 1m3.217s
reiser3 real 1m1.387s
jfs real 1m23.267s
xfs real 1m26.931s
ext3 real 1m1.526s
time rm -r /mnt/t/hdd-livecd/
reiser4 real 0m11.666s
reiser3 real 0m4.669s
jfs real 0m38.186s
xfs real 0m32.916s
ext3 real 0m7.207s |
some quick resume :
1.Want to discover the America once again ?
EXT3 is a most universal filesystem for overall using
the speed of copying kernel and livecd files is the same as with reiser4
every other fs is slower.
Depending of high cpu usage by reiser*** filesystems ( Yes , I want to have better interactivity from the system ) I decided to move to the "roots" .
I see 2 alternatives now : EXT3 and JFS .
EXT3 is more universal and average . JFS _IN OVERALL_ is little slower than EXT3 but has incredible _LOW_ cpu usage in some cases.
IM undecided then .... and dont know what to choose EXT3 or JFS ..
please report Your opinion about ext3 and jfs comparison
cheers
fallow _________________ "Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived" J-L. Picard
Last edited by fallow on Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:13 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Enlight Advocate


Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 3519 Location: Alsace (France)
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well currently I'm an xfs user, and I was thinking that it was time using it a better way, it'seems that there are somme great features available like putting journalisation on another hd than the one you're writting on wich should massively improve latency (I was thinking about getting an old hd for stuffs like this) and I've heard that there were ways to makes it perform very fast on small files.
But now your post make me want to give a try at JFS, but I was wondering if multiples files sytem support won't perform slower (ie using reiser3.6 for /etc, xfs for /home...) for 1) making kernel bigger and 2) increasing cpu load? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cintra Advocate


Joined: 03 Apr 2004 Posts: 2111 Location: Norway
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hei
I currently use reiser3.6 but I'm thinking of putting up a test 2005 partition using jfs
the following post helped make up my mind..
Quote: | cybermonkey
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Posts: 84
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:22 pm
I've been using JFS on my everyday comp now for about 4 months and have had no problems whatsoever Very Happy
The reason i use it is because everynow and then the power company around here like to switch this area off at will and ..
JFS recovers in a snap with all data intact |
Oh, and thanks for the comparison effort
mvh _________________ "I am not bound to please thee with my answers" W.S. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fallow Bodhisattva


Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 2206 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm. Yeah . journal data on other hd can be a very good idea. but I dont have possibilities to do it
my target is a home desktop
In the past I had many of different fs for /usr , portage etc. but now I want to stick with the one.
I think that ext3 can be a best choice.
cheers. _________________ "Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived" J-L. Picard |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
IvanYosifov l33t


Joined: 15 Oct 2004 Posts: 778 Location: Bulgaria
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fallow, it may be my browser fonts, but the text in the table is missaligned Can you please put the data in a plain text file an upload it somewhere ? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Enlight Advocate


Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 3519 Location: Alsace (France)
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes I think about sticking with only one too, in order to have an as small as possible kernel, that's why I was wondering If stuffs like initrd could be done with xfs as an example, putting journalisation elsewhere.
BTW I was thinking for desktop too but as I 've got a sata disk I was thinking about getting an old and cheap little ide disk to put journalisation on it, or why not an usb key... or something insane like this
ps : I'm currently trying vivids which seemed to be the closest sources from what I was looking for, and would soon report back my impressions on 'em
Last edited by Enlight on Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
vipernicus Veteran


Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 1462 Location: Your College IT Dept.
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:35 pm Post subject: ext3 |
|
|
For a while, I had decided to switch to ext3 from reiser3, and found a major issue, at times, when moving or copying a bunch of < 25kb files, the file system would lock up, and cause me to reboot, this has actually happened to me on more than one occassion, with gentoo, and with slackware. With reiser3, i never have this issue. I am curious about JFS though. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Sith_Happens Veteran


Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 1807 Location: The University of Maryland at College Park
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a pretty good benchmark I found a while ago for xfs, jfs, xext3, ext2, and reiserfs 3.6. Before you say the benchmark is too old, look at the hardware they are using. I think your benchmarks are good fallow, just check these out too. Anyway I use Reiserfs 3.6, I think it has the best mix of stability and speed for my application. However, if you look at the benchmark, you'll see that each filesystem has it's advantages and disadvantages, it's not really like there is a "best filesystem" for all purposes. However, it does seem that this benchmark shows there is worst filesystem for all applications ext3. We'll, not for all aplications, it is stable as hell, but it's also as slow as it is stable.  _________________ "That question was less stupid; though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way."
I'm the brains behind Jackass! | Tutorials: Shorewall |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Enlight Advocate


Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 3519 Location: Alsace (France)
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | LIBC VERSION: 2.3.2
KERNEL: linux-2.4.26
COMPILER USED: gcc-3.3.3
EXT2: e2fsprogs-1.35/sbin/mkfs.ext2
EXT3: e2fsprogs-1.35/sbin/mkfs.ext3
JFS: jfsutils-1.1.5/sbin/mkfs.jfs
REISERFS: reiserfsprogs-3.6.14/sbin/mkreiserfs
XFS: xfsprogs-2.5.6/sbin/mkfs.xfs |
Actually there have been recent improvement into JFS, and the test takes ext3 and xfs stock, as I said before, there are probably major improvements that can be done both xfs, and some could be done with ext3 too (see codergeek's post for ext3).
BTW if someone could explain me what real time allocator does and how it performs...
Quote: | Optional Realtime Allocator
XFS supports the notion of a "realtime subvolume" - a separate area of disk space where only file data is stored. Space on this subvolume is managed using the realtime allocator (as opposed to the default, B+ tree space allocator). The realtime subvolume is designed to provide very deterministic data rates suitable for media streaming applications. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Sith_Happens Veteran


Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 1807 Location: The University of Maryland at College Park
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Code: | Optional Realtime Allocator
XFS supports the notion of a "realtime subvolume" - a separate area of disk space where only file data is stored. Space on this subvolume is managed using the realtime allocator (as opposed to the default, B+ tree space allocator). The realtime subvolume is designed to provide very deterministic data rates suitable for media streaming applications. | Yeah, I saw this too. Right now I'm using xfs for a filehosting application, and I would be interested in what I could use this aspect of xfs for in that area. _________________ "That question was less stupid; though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way."
I'm the brains behind Jackass! | Tutorials: Shorewall |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ewan.paton Veteran


Joined: 29 Jul 2003 Posts: 1219 Location: glasgow, scotland
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i uses xfs for /home reiserfs for / and may get round to switching /usr/portage to reiser4 eventualy i cant quite place why i like xfs for big files but i do, i think its about matching whats best for the job _________________ Giay tay nam | Giay nam cao cap | Giay luoi |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Illissius Guru


Joined: 31 Jul 2004 Posts: 395 Location: Hungary
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
(You did reboot or otherwise clear the filecache between tests, right?)
Thanks a lot for the numbers. For JFS's and XFS's low performance and CPU utilization during the file create/remove tests, the explanation is right below: incredibly high latency. This is not a good thing, it means system resources can't being fully utilized. EXT3 also has very high latency (though not as high as X/JFS), but that apparently doesn't prevent it from consuming 100% CPU while performing piss poorly. These numbers also explain why reiser* is so fast at emerge syncing, while not necessarily at other things: they're very fast at file creation/deletion, which emerge sync apparently involves lots of. With the exception of reiser4 rather underperforming, the data read/write tests don't seem to have much variance, which makes sense, as I would assume there's less filesystem involvement anyways (filesystems manage the stuff between the files, not so much the stuff in them).
I'm also surprised about the kernel source and livecd copy/remove test results... the traditionally expected results would have been reiser* dominating the copy/remove tests, and XFS likewise for the livecd copying, which plainly did not happen.
Anyways, the conclusions I would draw from this data (the results would have to be independently verified before I'd put any trust in it):
- reiser4 doesn't (yet) live up to the hype. at best it manages to keep pace with the others, at worst it's significantly off it. coupled with the potential stability issues, it doesn't look too attractive.
- XFS and JFS suck at both file creation/deletion and copying large files, while not making up for it in the other tests. at least they are likely to actually *work*, but nothing to get excited about. (such high latency and poor performance for XFS in copying a large file make me think that there may have been issues with the test configuration in fact, hence the disclaimer above...)
- EXT3 is fucking abysmal at creating/removing files, but performs very solidly at everything else. Assuming you don't mind your emerge syncs going slower (is there anything else that involves heavy file creation/removal besides that?), and given its solid track record, it's a fine enough choice.
- reiser3 leaves everything else in its dust for creating and removing files (only reiser4 gets close), and keeps up quite well in all the other tests. and has a likewise solid track record. it would, hence, be my pick.
(Again, let me reiterate that these conclusions are based on, and only on, the data presented above. More data (such as XFS actually not sucking at the thing it was meant to be good at) may well end up changing them.)
And thanks again to fallow for making the data available. _________________ Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
last.fm
Last edited by Illissius on Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Lechium Apprentice


Joined: 04 Apr 2005 Posts: 244
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is your choice, really... I've used all of these aside JFS, and honestly couldn't tell the difference between ext2 and reiserfs bu simply using these. Tests and such show the descrepency, but as end user experience goes the differences are miniscule.
On the side note -- pick whatever you like as long as it has journaling. Journaling will slow things down (by a hardly noticeble amount), but wil avoid possible half-writen files etc, so IHMO its worth it.
P.S. reiserfs4 can be the best choice for a simple reason -- a lot of people use it, so if you get into trouble it will be easier finding help, than if you run jfs/xfs. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
codergeek42 Bodhisattva

Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 5142 Location: Anaheim, CA (USA)
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Illissius wrote: | - EXT3 is fucking abysmal at creating/removing files, but performs very solidly at everything else. Assuming you don't mind your emerge syncs going slower (is there anything else that involves heavy file creation/removal besides that?), and given its solid track record, it's a fine enough choice. | Actually, ext3 has very good I/O when reading/writing lots of stuff simultaneously (including many creates/writes/deletions in succession) if you enable full data journalling (not simply use the default metadata journalling and block grouping). But I do understand that you're making this conclusion from the data, so this would not be a valid argument in this case to use ext3.
Anyways, from what you've given us fallow, and from what I've read I'm actually very interested in how JFS can perform on a desktop/workstation box as compared to ext3 or ReiserFS v3. _________________ ~~ Peter: Programmer, Mathematician, STEM & Free Software Advocate, Enlightened Agent, Transhumanist, Fedora contributor
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
i92guboj Bodhisattva


Joined: 30 Nov 2004 Posts: 10305 Location: Córdoba (Spain)
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lechium wrote: | This is your choice, really... I've used all of these aside JFS, and honestly couldn't tell the difference between ext2 and reiserfs bu simply using these. Tests and such show the descrepency, but as end user experience goes the differences are miniscule.
On the side note -- pick whatever you like as long as it has journaling. Journaling will slow things down (by a hardly noticeble amount), but wil avoid possible half-writen files etc, so IHMO its worth it.
P.S. reiserfs4 can be the best choice for a simple reason -- a lot of people use it, so if you get into trouble it will be easier finding help, than if you run jfs/xfs. |
1.- I doubt it is the most used fs in linux, since it is new and not in the kernel. I don't have official info or something like that, but I think the most used linux fs could be one of ext3 or reiserfs 3.6.
2.- If there are lots of info in the forums about it is because if fails and then people ask for help. Ext3 never fails, so no need to ask.
3.- Paraphrasing: 'windows xp can be the best choice for a simple reason -- a lot (much more than reiser4) of people use it, so if you get into trouble it will be aesier finding help, than if you run linux."
Dont bother, just jokinng  _________________ Gentoo Handbook | My website |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Lechium Apprentice


Joined: 04 Apr 2005 Posts: 244
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
6thpink wrote: | Lechium wrote: | This is your choice, really... I've used all of these aside JFS, and honestly couldn't tell the difference between ext2 and reiserfs bu simply using these. Tests and such show the descrepency, but as end user experience goes the differences are miniscule.
On the side note -- pick whatever you like as long as it has journaling. Journaling will slow things down (by a hardly noticeble amount), but wil avoid possible half-writen files etc, so IHMO its worth it.
P.S. reiserfs4 can be the best choice for a simple reason -- a lot of people use it, so if you get into trouble it will be easier finding help, than if you run jfs/xfs. |
1.- I doubt it is the most used fs in linux, since it is new and not in the kernel. I don't have official info or something like that, but I think the most used linux fs could be one of ext3 or reiserfs 3.6.
2.- If there are lots of info in the forums about it is because if fails and then people ask for help. Ext3 never fails, so no need to ask.
3.- Paraphrasing: 'windows xp can be the best choice for a simple reason -- a lot (much more than reiser4) of people use it, so if you get into trouble it will be aesier finding help, than if you run linux."
Dont bother, just jokinng  |
ext2/3 are the most used linux file systems, however as I said above -- file journaling is a very very good thing to have.
P.S. I have absolutley no animosity towards NT4.0, as Windows goes =) (oh damn I'm about to get flamed...) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fallow Bodhisattva


Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 2206 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Im little bus at the moment , and not reading all but
is the one thing - > speed of filesystem isnt all . In most cases faster fs occupied this by lost of interactivity . Is important to rethinnk what do U want - faster FS at all costs , or good overall interactivity . Im trying to find a good balance beetwen everything now .
and I think that is must to have better testing than this . this is _very_ very simple test.
JUST to start a discussion . Is many of other better methods . (OH sorry bonnie++ results was good )
[b] ANOTHER TEST [b]
One of friends from Polish forums did testing based on the good this ( http://linuxgazette.net/102/piszcz.html ) test.
WHAT IS WHAT wrote: |
001] Create 10,000 files with touch in a directory.
002] Run 'find' on that directory.
003] Remove the directory.
004] Create 10,000 directories with mkdir in a directory.
005] Run 'find' on that directory.
006] Remove the directory containing the 10,000 directories.
007] Copy kernel tarball from other disk to test disk.
008] Copy kernel tarball from test disk to other disk.
009] Untar kernel tarball on the same disk.
010] Tar kernel tarball on the same disk.
011] Remove kernel source tree.
012] Copy kernel tarball 10 times.
013] Create 1GB file from /dev/zero.
014] Copy the 1GB file on the same disk.
015] Split a 10MB file into 1000 byte pieces.
016] Split a 10MB file into 1024 byte pieces.
017] Split a 10MB file into 2048 byte pieces.
018] Split a 10MB file into 4096 byte pieces.
019] Split a 10MB file into 8192 byte pieces.
020] Copy kernel source tree on the same disk.
021] Cat a 1GB file to /dev/null.
| RESULTS Code: |
Filesystem: ext2
- creating filesystem with options '-L test': 4.375 seconds
- mounting filesystem: 0.034 seconds
- filesystem info:
/dev/evms/test 10321204 20 9796900 1% /mnt/testfs
/dev/evms/test on /mnt/testfs type ext2 (rw)
- testing filesystem:
+ test T01: 14.950 seconds, 668.90 files/second
+ test T02: 0.013 seconds, 794721.94 files/second
+ test T03: 0.078 seconds, 127751.65 files/second
+ test T04: 26.667 seconds, 375.00 dirs/second
+ test T05: 0.171 seconds, 58426.26 dirs/second
+ test T06: 0.403 seconds, 24814.02 dirs/second
+ test T07: 1.965 seconds, 18589993.41 bytes/second
+ test T08: 0.983 seconds, 37160948.18 bytes/second
+ test T09: 34.229 seconds
+ test T10: 26.639 seconds
+ test T11: 0.270 seconds
+ test T12: 19.772 seconds
+ test T13: 23.562 seconds, 45570793.69 bytes/second
+ test T14: 50.427 seconds, 21292837.24 bytes/second
+ test T15: 5.769 seconds
+ test T16: 4.992 seconds
+ test T17: 1.482 seconds
+ test T18: 0.494 seconds
+ test T19: 0.229 seconds
+ test T20: 8.233 seconds
+ test T21: 22.315 seconds
- unmounting filesystem: 0.182 seconds
Filesystem: ext3
- creating filesystem with options '-L test -j': 5.526 seconds
- mounting filesystem: 0.086 seconds
- filesystem info:
/dev/evms/test 10321204 32828 9764092 1% /mnt/testfs
/dev/evms/test on /mnt/testfs type ext3 (rw)
- testing filesystem:
+ test T01: 21.473 seconds, 465.70 files/second
+ test T02: 0.069 seconds, 145368.04 files/second
+ test T03: 0.231 seconds, 43289.83 files/second
+ test T04: 24.928 seconds, 401.16 dirs/second
+ test T05: 0.191 seconds, 52455.16 dirs/second
+ test T06: 1.188 seconds, 8417.65 dirs/second
+ test T07: 2.018 seconds, 18100318.74 bytes/second
+ test T08: 0.928 seconds, 39376133.38 bytes/second
+ test T09: 36.182 seconds
+ test T10: 25.859 seconds
+ test T11: 0.544 seconds
+ test T12: 20.311 seconds
+ test T13: 25.038 seconds, 42884207.81 bytes/second
+ test T14: 53.003 seconds, 20258278.62 bytes/second
+ test T15: 7.939 seconds
+ test T16: 9.878 seconds
+ test T17: 2.096 seconds
+ test T18: 0.624 seconds
+ test T19: 0.278 seconds
+ test T20: 19.462 seconds
+ test T21: 22.321 seconds
- unmounting filesystem: 0.196 seconds
Filesystem: jfs
- creating filesystem with options '-L test -q': 0.874 seconds
- mounting filesystem: 0.183 seconds
- filesystem info:
/dev/evms/test 10452464 1408 10451056 1% /mnt/testfs
/dev/evms/test on /mnt/testfs type jfs (rw)
- testing filesystem:
+ test T01: 12.114 seconds, 825.51 files/second
+ test T02: 0.054 seconds, 183516.40 files/second
+ test T03: 0.905 seconds, 11045.53 files/second
+ test T04: 12.001 seconds, 833.27 dirs/second
+ test T05: 0.291 seconds, 34322.29 dirs/second
+ test T06: 1.652 seconds, 6051.72 dirs/second
+ test T07: 1.999 seconds, 18276310.88 bytes/second
+ test T08: 0.922 seconds, 39616427.42 bytes/second
+ test T09: 36.251 seconds
+ test T10: 26.824 seconds
+ test T11: 4.377 seconds
+ test T12: 18.882 seconds
+ test T13: 26.052 seconds, 41215360.39 bytes/second
+ test T14: 88.937 seconds, 12073091.94 bytes/second
+ test T15: 3.477 seconds
+ test T16: 3.367 seconds
+ test T17: 1.360 seconds
+ test T18: 0.548 seconds
+ test T19: 0.347 seconds
+ test T20: 23.082 seconds
+ test T21: 22.170 seconds
- unmounting filesystem: 0.246 seconds
Filesystem: xfs
- creating filesystem with options '-L test -f': 0.683 seconds
- mounting filesystem: 0.217 seconds
- filesystem info:
/dev/evms/test 10475456 272 10475184 1% /mnt/testfs
/dev/evms/test on /mnt/testfs type xfs (rw)
- testing filesystem:
+ test T01: 12.756 seconds, 783.93 files/second
+ test T02: 0.050 seconds, 198601.46 files/second
+ test T03: 1.750 seconds, 5714.73 files/second
+ test T04: 12.863 seconds, 777.41 dirs/second
+ test T05: 0.165 seconds, 60710.55 dirs/second
+ test T06: 1.447 seconds, 6909.05 dirs/second
+ test T07: 1.974 seconds, 18502968.61 bytes/second
+ test T08: 0.785 seconds, 46523469.80 bytes/second
+ test T09: 37.182 seconds
+ test T10: 25.806 seconds
+ test T11: 1.771 seconds
+ test T12: 19.094 seconds
+ test T13: 22.615 seconds, 47479456.22 bytes/second
+ test T14: 48.297 seconds, 22232217.43 bytes/second
+ test T15: 4.262 seconds
+ test T16: 3.750 seconds
+ test T17: 1.942 seconds
+ test T18: 0.995 seconds
+ test T19: 0.510 seconds
+ test T20: 19.657 seconds
+ test T21: 22.227 seconds
- unmounting filesystem: 0.196 seconds
Filesystem: reiserfs
- creating filesystem with options '-l test -q': 0.940 seconds
- mounting filesystem: 0.847 seconds
- filesystem info:
/dev/evms/test 10485372 32840 10452532 1% /mnt/testfs
/dev/evms/test on /mnt/testfs type reiserfs (rw)
- testing filesystem:
+ test T01: 11.278 seconds, 886.66 files/second
+ test T02: 0.061 seconds, 163875.85 files/second
+ test T03: 0.407 seconds, 24583.01 files/second
+ test T04: 11.098 seconds, 901.05 dirs/second
+ test T05: 0.365 seconds, 27372.05 dirs/second
+ test T06: 11.230 seconds, 890.44 dirs/second
+ test T07: 1.982 seconds, 18433120.28 bytes/second
+ test T08: 0.969 seconds, 37721601.34 bytes/second
+ test T09: 36.846 seconds
+ test T10: 25.942 seconds
+ test T11: 1.170 seconds
+ test T12: 20.710 seconds
+ test T13: 25.038 seconds, 42884903.25 bytes/second
+ test T14: 59.869 seconds, 17934932.70 bytes/second
+ test T15: 1.390 seconds
+ test T16: 1.240 seconds
+ test T17: 0.752 seconds
+ test T18: 0.357 seconds
+ test T19: 0.257 seconds
+ test T20: 27.548 seconds
+ test T21: 24.886 seconds
- unmounting filesystem: 0.230 seconds
Filesystem: reiser4
- creating filesystem with options '-L test -y': 0.376 seconds
- mounting filesystem: 0.136 seconds
- filesystem info:
/dev/evms/test 9963520 460 9963060 1% /mnt/testfs
/dev/evms/test on /mnt/testfs type reiser4 (rw)
- testing filesystem:
+ test T01: 11.642 seconds, 858.97 files/second
+ test T02: 0.101 seconds, 99040.22 files/second
+ test T03: 0.741 seconds, 13501.23 files/second
+ test T04: 11.870 seconds, 842.48 dirs/second
+ test T05: 0.260 seconds, 38405.83 dirs/second
+ test T06: 30.898 seconds, 323.65 dirs/second
+ test T07: 1.968 seconds, 18565535.15 bytes/second
+ test T08: 0.944 seconds, 38694528.41 bytes/second
+ test T09: 38.743 seconds
+ test T10: 26.569 seconds
+ test T11: 2.351 seconds
+ test T12: 17.703 seconds
+ test T13: 23.650 seconds, 45401134.44 bytes/second
+ test T14: 48.254 seconds, 22251975.55 bytes/second
+ test T15: 1.140 seconds
+ test T16: 0.836 seconds
+ test T17: 0.546 seconds
+ test T18: 0.414 seconds
+ test T19: 0.310 seconds
+ test T20: 14.530 seconds
+ test T21: 22.834 seconds
- unmounting filesystem: 0.996 seconds
|
http://wa.fema.pl/~gkowal/fsbench/
now we have another thing to interprete : I THINK THIS test is better much hehe  _________________ "Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived" J-L. Picard |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
codergeek42 Bodhisattva

Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 5142 Location: Anaheim, CA (USA)
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lechium wrote: | ext2/3 are the most used linux file systems, however as I said above -- file journaling is a very very good thing to have. | And that's the exact purpose of ext3. It takes the tried and proven ext2 filesystem and adds a JBD (Journalling Block Device) layer which theoretically allows journalling on any block device I/O. To my understandning though this JBD is still only used in ext3, while the other journalling FSes use their own journalling code. Quote: | P.S. I have absolutley no animosity towards NT4.0, as Windows goes =) (oh damn I'm about to get flamed...) | Yes you are  _________________ ~~ Peter: Programmer, Mathematician, STEM & Free Software Advocate, Enlightened Agent, Transhumanist, Fedora contributor
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Illissius Guru


Joined: 31 Jul 2004 Posts: 395 Location: Hungary
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fallow wrote: | [b] ANOTHER TEST [b]
One of friends from Polish forums did testing based on the good this ( http://linuxgazette.net/102/piszcz.html ) test.
...snip...
now we have another thing to interprete : I THINK THIS test is better much hehe  |
anyone with the requisite skillz care to make some nice, digestable graphs out of that? _________________ Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
last.fm |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
i92guboj Bodhisattva


Joined: 30 Nov 2004 Posts: 10305 Location: Córdoba (Spain)
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is the a table that resumes the one that fellow posted above, here we can see the thing in a compact way.
Code: |
ext2 ext3 jfs xfs reiser3 reiser4
1 Create 10.000 files into a dir 14,950 21,473 12,144 12,756 11,278 11,642
2 Run find on that dir 00,013 00,069 00,054 00,050 00,061 00,101
3 Remove that dir 00,078 00,231 00,905 01,750 00,407 00,741
4 Create 10.000 dirs 26,667 24,928 12,001 12,863 11,098 11,870
5 Run find on that dir 00,171 00,191 00,291 00,165 00,365 00,260
6 Remove the whole dir 00,403 01,188 01,652 01,447 11,230 30,898
7 Copy kernel tar from other disk 01,965 02,018 01,999 01,974 01,982 01,968
8 Copy kernel tar to other disk 00,983 00,928 00,922 00,785 00,969 00,944
9 Untar kernel 34,229 36,182 36,251 37,182 36,946 38,743
10 Tar kernel 26,639 25,859 26,824 25,806 25,942 26,569
11 Remove kerlnel source dir 00,270 00,544 04,377 01,771 01,170 02,351
12 Copy kernel tarball 10 times 19,772 20,311 18,882 19,094 20,710 17,703
13 Create 1gb from /dev/zero 23,572 25,038 26,052 22,615 25,038 23,650
14 Copy the 1gb file same disk 50,427 53,003 88,937 48,297 59,869 48,254
15 Split 10mb file 1000 byte pcs 05,769 07,939 03,477 04,262 01,390 01,140
16 Split 10mb file 1024 byte pcs 04,992 09,878 03,367 03,750 01,240 00,836
17 Split 10mb file 2048 byte pcs 01,482 02,096 01,360 01,942 00,752 00,546
18 Split 10mb file 4096 byte pcs 00,494 00,624 00,548 00,995 00,357 00,414
19 Split 10mb file 8192 byte pcs 00,229 00,278 00,347 00,510 00,257 00,310
20 Copy kernel tree same disk 08,233 19,462 23,082 19,657 27,548 14,530
21 Cat 1gb to /dev/null 22,315 22,321 22,170 22,227 24,886 22,834
|
My conclussions:
Managing big files, this is 9, 10, 13 and 21, makes no sensible difference, predictable, no?
Copying times are also similar (7, 8, 12)
Creation of tons of files (1, 4) is a good job for reiser3 and 4, and so bad one for ext3.
The best finding files (2, 6) are xfs and ext2, the worst are reiser brothers, and jfs in dirs.
When it comes to massive deletion (3, 6), ext2/3 is fast, reiser3 usable, the rest just sucks by long way.
To erase the kernel tree is faster with ext2/3, the worse if jfs. The rest works well also. Strange, this results seems like they contradict the previous one, someone can explain this misteriously thing?
I did not look to the split marks, since, really, I dont think this is any king of usual operation, and can be greatly affected by the size of the files, the free disk space, etc, etc.
What'yaaaaa think??[/list] _________________ Gentoo Handbook | My website |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kraymer Guru


Joined: 27 Aug 2003 Posts: 349 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:01 pm Post subject: the mix |
|
|
The mix is important.
Currently I use reiserfs (3.6) for root and home, xfs for my data partition (file server, lots of bigg files).
Once it's ready (whenever it'll be) I'll change my system and home to reiser4.
Had bad experience with jfs once: On my fileserver I had major data loss on power failure, the partition was unmounable (and believe I searched my ass off the Inet and it turned out that I was doomed (special circumstances though). Switched that to xfs, and even on a software raid, power failure happend again, system rebooted fine and everything was in its place
You always have to consider the purpose the filesystem shall fulfill. For overall usage, reiserfs is fine for me (although it's sad that only 8K blocksize works ), xfs is great for my large data partition.
Sebastian |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
spb Retired Dev


Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Posts: 2135 Location: Cambridge, UK
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lechium wrote: | P.S. reiserfs4 can be the best choice for a simple reason -- a lot of people use it, so if you get into trouble it will be easier finding help, than if you run jfs/xfs. | It also means that anyone not obsessed with getting the last little bit of performance out of their system at the expense of it actually working will refuse to help you at all.
As for which to use, ext2/3 and xfs are the only ones that actually work, so I use those. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Enlight Advocate


Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 3519 Location: Alsace (France)
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
okay so I guess I'll definitively stick with xfs, morover I tried reiserfs 3.6 once and my sata disk was making twice noise as in xfs while writing... gonna got a usb stick and try to put journalisation on it  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kraymer Guru


Joined: 27 Aug 2003 Posts: 349 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:05 pm Post subject: sense? |
|
|
Enlight wrote: | ... gonna got a usb stick and try to put journalisation on it  |
of course you can create every filesystem you want on usb sticks... the point however is (IMO):
- to remain data 'really' portable, let it stick to fat16/32
- the media/ship/flash/whatever in usb sticks is usually really cheap. I don't know if you'll gain much be a journal if the media would fail.. :-/ |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Enlight Advocate


Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 3519 Location: Alsace (France)
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: sense? |
|
|
Kraymer wrote: | Enlight wrote: | ... gonna got a usb stick and try to put journalisation on it  |
of course you can create every filesystem you want on usb sticks... the point however is (IMO):
- to remain data 'really' portable, let it stick to fat16/32
- the media/ship/flash/whatever in usb sticks is usually really cheap. I don't know if you'll gain much be a journal if the media would fail.. :-/ |
You didn't got it, only journalisation will be on the stick an data will be on my hard disk :
from the man:
=============
Quote: | The metadata log can be placed on another device to reduce the number
of disk seeks. To create a filesystem on the first partition on the
first SCSI disk with a 10000 block log located on the first partition
on the second SCSI disk, use:
mkfs.xfs -l logdev=/dev/sdb1,size=10000b /dev/sda1 |
Wonderfull... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|