The lost art of benchmarking was Re: Reiser4

Leonard den Ottolander leonard at den.ottolander.nl
Mon Sep 20 19:19:10 UTC 2004


Hi Jon,

On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 19:28, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> A change from 1400 seconds (ext3) to 1583 (reiser4) strikes me as more
> than noise.

I didn't state the results are just noise, just that when testing the
file system specifically doing this with a CPU intensive task the
signal/noise ratio will suffer.

However

> Reiser4 is a CPU-heavy filesystem - by admission of its own developers.
> So its performance will certainly suffer, relative to lighter
> filesystems, when executing a CPU-intensive, filesystem-intensive task.

I hadn't considered reiser4 is much more CPU intensive than ext3, which
indeed makes the distinction between CPU and fs intensive less clear,
and speaks for your approach. That's the trouble with benchmarking, you
have to know what you want to test. And it's important to make such
considerations explicit when publishing results.

Leonard.

-- 
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research






More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list