Ok, I am make another experiment. I am buy new HDD and format it with
btrfs file system. Also I increased size of grep data and make bash script
wich automate testing:
#!/bin/bash
#For testing on windows machine
#grep_path='/cygdrive/e/Sources/inside'
#For testing on new HDD
#grep_path='/run/media/mikhail/eaa531cd-25f4-4e00-b31f-22665faa9768/sources/inside'
#For testing in real life
grep_path='/home/mikhail/sources/inside'
command="grep -rn 'float:left;display: block;height: 24px;line-height:
1.2em;position: relative;text-align: center;white-space: nowrap;width:
80px;' '$grep_path'"
log_file='res.log'
exec 3>&1 1>>${log_file} 2>&1
while [ 1 = 1 ]
do
(( count++ ))
echo "PASS: $count" at `date +"%T"` | tee /dev/fd/3
echo $command | tee /dev/fd/3
eval "{ time $command > /dev/null; } |& tee /dev/fd/3"
done
And get very interesting results:
Linux btrfs with NEW HDD: 6.441s (result as in syntetic tests)
Linux btrfs with real data HDD (used 94%): 16m52.036s Very bad why???
Data are same with first variant.
Windows ntfs NEW HDD: 1m27.643s
I am really disappointed why in real life (home folder) have so bad results
It's possible HDD which is used 94% optimise speed as on empty hard drive?
Both hard disk are same. This is ST4000NM0033-9ZM170.
--
Best Regards,
Mike Gavrilov.
