On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 10:39:29PM +0100, Michael M?ller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 05:53:33PM -0500, Sonny Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 11:40:21AM +0100, Michael M?ller wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I read an article in the German 'Linux Magazin' 11/04 about a > > > comparision of the different FS. They tested Ext2, Ext3, JFS, XFS, > > > ReiserFS, Reiser4 and Veritas. Detailed results can be found on > > > http://www.linux-magazin.de/Service/Listings/2004/11/fs_bench. > > The link only contains test results; no German texts.
True, there were a few articles for November here: http://www.linux-magazin.de/Artikel/ausgabe/2004/11 > > My guess is that they didn't set the readahead high enough for > > whatever type of device they were testing on 2.6 (It looks like a Raid > > array, since on 2.4 it gets about 100MB/sec, which I don't think very > > many single disks can do). The readahead implementation on 2.6 is > > certainly different from the one on 2.4. IO performance on 2.6 is > > much, much better across the board. > > > > My German isn't great, so I'm not going to try and read the article, > > but I'd also like to know what kind of array they are using for this > > test. Before we can make any conclusions, we should know what the > > hardware is capable of doing. > > The hardware: > > Pentium 4, 2.8GHz, 512MB, 12 SATA-HDs in a RAID, overall capacity 2TB, > test partition 200GB > > For the 2.4 tests they used SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8, kernel > 2.4.21-138-smp, for 2.6 SuSE Linux 9.1, 2.6.7-mm4 with patches for > Reiser 4. Ok, how did they set the readahead size in the tests, just the defaults ? For a 12 disk array, the default of 128k readahead on 2.6 isn't going to cut it. Was it a hardware or software RAID? RAID-0, RAID-5, RAID-10? If it was hardware, what type of adapter, was it a PCI-X adapter or just a regular PCI? Given all of that, what is the expected/advertised hardware throughput? Something like aio-stress would be a good test since a filesystem isn't required, and we can isolate problems in the block layer/drivers. One needs most of these details to make any kind of reasonable conclusion from the results given. Sonny _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
