On Saturday 30 June 2001 20:29, Jens Benecke wrote:
> I just had a, er, 'lively' discussion with someone claiming ReiserFS is
> crap because it hogs even the fastest CPU too much, and it uses 4x as
> much processing power to do metadata operations, and in general is
> slower because of the journal. My benchmarks don't reflect this,
> especially on current hardware (ATA-66 and ATA-100 disks on VIA
> chipsets).
>
> While I agree that the journal does create an additional overhead, I'd
> like to know if the CPU overhead is really that much. I've seen your
> benchmarks on the web site but they don't say anything about CPU
> useage.
I agree with Craig, I have one thing to add that Craig missed.
Every 12 to 24 months CPU speed doubles. Now 1.4GHz CPUs with advanced
cache and memory architectures are common while in 1990 20MHz CPUs
without any caches were where it was at.
Hard drive speed increases much more slowly. Now typical seek times are
around 5ms and transfer rates are 35MB/s. In 1990 seek times were around
24ms and transfer rates were around 1MB/s.
For future scalability a file system that uses lots of CPU time may be
better than a file system that uses lots of disk access.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
