Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3
andrewho at animezone.org
Wed Mar 3 01:30:32 UTC 2004
XFS is the best filesystem.
David Weinehall wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:33:13PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
>>On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 09:34, Peter Nelson wrote:
>>>Hans Reiser wrote:
>>>I'm confused as to why performing a benchmark out of cache as opposed to
>>>on disk would hurt performance?
>>My understanding (which could be completely wrong) is that reieserfs v3
>>and v4 are algorithmically more complex than ext2 or ext3. Reiserfs
>>spends more CPU time to make the eventual ondisk operations more
>>When operating purely or mostly out of ram, the higher CPU utilization
>>of reiserfs hurts performance compared to ext2 and ext3.
>>When your system I/O utilization exceeds cache size and your disks
>>starting getting busy, the CPU time previously invested by reiserfs pays
>>big dividends and provides large performance gains versus more
>>In other words, the CPU penalty paid by reiserfs v3/v4 is more than made
>>up for by the resultant more efficient disk operations. Reiserfs trades
>>CPU for disk performance.
>>In a nutshell, if you have more memory than you know what do to with,
>>stick with ext3. If you spend all your time waiting for disk operations
>>to complete, go with reiserfs.
>Or rather, if you have more memory than you know what to do with, use
>ext3. If you have more CPU power than you know what to do with, use
>On slower machines, I generally prefer a little slower I/O rather than
>having the entire system sluggish because of higher CPU-usage.
>Regards: David Weinehall
More information about the Ext3-users