Slashdot Mirror
Linux File System Shootout
IpSo_ writes "Finally an extensive, human readable Linux file system benchmark has been unleashed upon us. Originally posted on the Linux Kernel mailing list, using two of the most popular benchmarking tools available, it compares all the major file systems, including their different mount options. The results are surprising."
Woah, looks like JFS performs really well!
Anyone has good/bad experience using JFS?
Hmm... I think I'll setup my test box with JFS...
--
One by one the penguins steal my sanity...
Hld on.. Isn't that the one SCO is claiming to own?
Indeed It would be very interesting to see the results of the microsoft fs supported by linux (fat32, ntfs), as well as more exotic ones (BSD, Netfs, minix, etc).
RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
Are there any similiar bakeoffs that work out efficiency with regards to different file sizes?
It would be nice if non-Linux filesystems (FATxx, NTFS etc) were also benchmarked.
... is that, overall, ext2fs seems to perform better than ext3fs. I know journaling is an important advantage of ext3fs, but isn't it more important (for some applications) to have better performances?
And, as many others have already pointed out, it would be nice to have a comparison of these file systems with the *BSDs FFS...
Any comment on this would be greatly appreciated!
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Now, before everyone goes "I knew it! ext3 sux!!!!111!!1", remember that the default mode for ext3 is ordered, and not journal. Compare the numbers for ext3_ordered and ext3_writeback with reiser/xfs/jfs, and you'll see that ext3 is very very close in most cases.
Hello, my name is Robert Lerner, and I pronounce Lernux as "99% cpu"
Christ, where are my mod points when I need them most, you deserve a +1 Insightful for this.
I totally agree. CPU cycles are alot less important on my box than disk seek times. Then again, I'm guessing that the people this will be most relevant for are those running servers. Mine are all running reiserfs and ext2.
Is it me, or is there a lack of information about the machine the tests were run on such as why is almost all of the memory used up? Second, a system with a single disk and swap is in use? What was this guy trying to test anyhow? All this tests is basically a typical Linux box with a single drive. I wouldn't base any decision to go from one filesystem to another based on these tests!
I could go on... About the only thing it is missing is encryption. Of course it remains to be seen whether the port to Linux will be successful, and whether Novell has the sense to make it open source.
I used to have a gentoo install with a JFS partition for the system on my laptop. The laptop ran so slow that I reinstalled the whole thing with reiserfs, now it runs so much faster, so how could JFS come in so high on the benchmarks while my experience has been that its dog slow?
The way to corrupt a youth is to teach him to hold in higher value them who think alike than those who think differently
every filesystem has its own purpose, for example reiser4 has atomic operations, database like capabilities, journalizing and metadata. now how are you going to say that ext2 is better because it performed better in brenchmark xyz. this is just the same thing as people buying a graphics card because it scored 1 or 2 fps more then an other card but forget that the other card has a build in mpeg2 or for the same price.
I have a new 200GB hard-drive on the way that will be here any day now. I plan on using this new drive as a storage drive for music, digital camera images, documents, bookmarks, settings, game save data, e-mail messages, backup data, and so on. If WinXP or Linux irreparably crashes on me, this storage drive (and it's mirrored backup) will contain all the data I care about.
I have two different physical drives in this machine now and I dual boot between them. Linux (for just about everything I do) and then WinXP (for things that absolutely require Windows.)
The new drive I'm getting will be hooked up to my machine externally via Firewire. (I don't need help with the external setup. I already have another drive hooked up this way and it works just fine.)
Now my question is - what is the best file system to use for compatibility between Windows XP and Linux. I require full read/write access to this drive whether I'm in Linux or WinXP. I know NTFS is out. (Even with the 2.6 kernel, write support from Linux to an NTFS partition is limited [can't create new files or directories] and Linux NTFS writing is not considered completely safe.)
I'm guessing VFAT is my only option but I thought I would ask around first.
I do have another machine laying around but I don't want to set it up as an NFS/Samba server for a few different reasons. #1. I don't want to leave the machine on 24/7. #2. I don't want to tie up that machine. I like experimenting with new things so if I turned that machine into a full time server, I wouldn't have a test bed machine any more. #3. I don't like NFS.
I have also thought about one of those Network Area Storage systems. Maybe someday, but at this point in time that idea is out too.
Does anyone have any experience with this? What solutions have you come up with?
You obviously have to test for your special use-case, but the argument holds: In most cases increasing CPU speed is easier than improving disk speed (especially seek times), thus, in most cases, a filesystem which sacrifices CPU cycles to offload the harddisk is a good choice.
I'm wondering if anyone either has real-world experience or benchmarks on optimium filesystems/partitions for a Linux workstation (the usual: web browsing, games, multimedia, etc)...
/home - JFS (fast but still has journaling support)
/etc, /usr - ext2 (mostly read-only operations, correct?)
/var - ext3, maybe JFS... still thinking. Like to run a database & webserver but only for my own use (practically zero load)
I'm thinking about the following (planning on switching back to Linux sometime soon hopefully):
Any comments?
# fuser -v
#
Ok, so where's the "human readable"? There is no analysis, conclusions, or anything else except raw numbers. There are no rankings, no sugestions, just numbers. Also, the test was run on a Pentium II, 450MHz, 512MB of ram and a 6.5GB IDE disk, 5400 rpm, 256kb cache, and 3 heads (=4gb/platter). This is nowhere close to current technology. You can't even buy this hardware any more! I would have much rather seen a 1-1.5GHz CPU with a 40GB hard disk used in the tests. The amount of memory is adequate, though.
To me the most important issue is response time. I replaced the standard EXT3 with ReiserFS and have seen a marked improvement when accessing files on disk. I have alot of small files on my workstation - so reiser really works for me.
Now, if I had a few large database files, then I might think of changing to something else - but I don't have that situation on my workstation, and probably never will. To echo what Spy Hunter said, I am willing to trade some CPU cycles for more efficient data retrieval - my cpu is 90% idle most times anyway (when I am not playing video games) so I have cycles to spare.
On my server, on the other hand, I am running Zope, initially using Berkely DB for the database. It is currently running redhat with EXT3 - and this will be the box where I will really need to think about performance in terms of large files as my application grows. I am also running Seti@home on this box, so CPU cycles are at a premium here.
On another note, the report itself was difficult to understand because there was no key that explained the colors or the fields. While it may be 'human readable', it is not 'human decipherable'.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain