[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Jfs-discussion] benchmark results

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 at 16:27, tytso mit edu wrote:
> If you don't do a "sync" after the tar, then in most cases you will be
> measuring the memory bandwidth, because data won't have been written

Well, I do "sync" after each operation, so the data should be on disk, but 
that doesn't mean it'll clear the filesystem buffers - but this doesn't 
happen that often in the real world too. Also, all filesystem were tested 
equally (I hope), yet some filesystem perform better than another - even 
if all the content copied/tar'ed/removed would perfectly well fit into the 
machines RAM.

> Another good example of well done file system benchmarks can be found
> at http://btrfs.boxacle.net

Thanks, I'll have a look at it and perhaps even integrate it in the 
wrapper script.

> benchmarks for a living.  Note that JFS and XFS come off much better
> on a number of the tests

Indeed, I was surpised to see JFS perform that good and XFS of course is 
one of the best too - I just wanted to point out that both of them 
are strangely slow at times (removing or creating many files) - not what I 

> --- and that there is a *large* number amount
> of variation when you look at different simulated workloads and with a
> varying number of threads writing to the file system at the same time.

True, the TODO list in the script ("different benchmark options") is in 
there for a reason :-)

BOFH excuse #291:

Due to the CDA, we no longer have a root account.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]