Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3

[Andrew Ho]

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
>>efficient/faster.
>>
>>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
>>simplistic filesystems.  
>>
>>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
>ReiserFS[34].
>
>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
>  
>