Benchmarking Linux Filesystems Part II

Anonymous Coward writes "Linux Gazette has a new filesystem benchmarking article, this time using the 2.6 kernel and showing ReiserFS v4. The second round of benchmarks include both the metrics from the first filesystem benchmark and the second in two matrices." From the article: "Instead of a Western Digital 250GB and Promise ATA/100 controller, I am now using a Seagate 400GB and Maxtor ATA/133 Promise controller. The physical machine remains the same, there is an additional 664MB of swap and I am now running Debian Etch. In the previous article, I was running Slackware 9.1 with custom compiled filesystem utilities. I've added a small section in the beginning that shows the filesystem creation and mount time, I've also added a graph showing these new benchmarks." We reported on the original benchmarks in the first half of last year.

Comments

Re:I would agree

[david.given]

Reiser4: Surprisingly, I didn't see Reiser4 really shine at a whole lot in the benchmarks. The massive mount time tells me it needs to be a local drive that only needs mounting the once. Just not sure what sort of data would be best on it.

I think the ReiserFS mount times in the benchmark are misleading. From my experience, mkreiserfs creates an extremely basic file system; the first time you mount it, the file system driver itself will do a lot of heavy housekeeping, which takes ages. Subsequent mounts are much faster.

In fact, I find the whole benchmark a bit dubious. A lot of the operations will vary wildly in speed depending on how much data is currently in the buffer cache or not. This means that performing the benchmarks in a different order is going to vastly change the results... couldn't he at least put a 'sync' in every now and again?

Flash / SWF

[fire-eyes]

Editors: Please don't post links to such garbage ridden pages like this. I got at least three or four prompts in konqueror 3.5 to save a .swf file or cancel.