Mike Fedyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:34:10PM +0200, Diego Calleja Garc?a wrote:
El Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:06:37 +0400 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi?:
I don't think ext2 is a serious option for servers of the sort that
Linux specializes in, which is
I've never wrote I made my guesses from the CPU percentage alone, you
explained correctly why. I encourage you too to calculate yourself how
much more CPU time reiser4 needs.
Ok, fair enough :)
-- Jamie
Hans Reiser wrote:
reiser4 cpu consumption is still dropping rapidly as others and I find
kruft in the code and remove it. Major kruft remains still.
If a file system is getting greater throughput, that means the relevant
code is being run more, which means more CPU will be used for the
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:45:14PM +0200, Diego Calleja Garc?a wrote:
El Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:04:27 -0700 Mike Fedyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi?:
Journaled filesystems have a much smaller chance of having problems after a
crash.
I've had (several) filesystem corruption in a desktop
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Jamie Lokier wrote:
reiser4 is using approximately twice the CPU percentage, but completes
in approximately half the time, therefore it uses about the same
amount of CPU time at the others.
Therefore on a loaded system, with a load carefully chosen to make the
test CPU
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
Solutions to this inaccuracy are to make the test so long-running (ten
minutes or more) that the difference is minor, or to include the `sync' in
the time measurement.
And/or reduce RAM at kernel boot, etc. Anyway, I also asked for 'sync'
yesterday
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:37:42PM -0400, Timothy Miller wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
reiser4 cpu consumption is still dropping rapidly as others and I find
kruft in the code and remove it. Major kruft remains still.
Now, if you can manage to make it twice as fast while NOT increasing
El Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:06:37 +0400 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
I don't think ext2 is a serious option for servers of the sort that
Linux specializes in, which is probably why he didn't measure it.
Why?
reiser4 cpu consumption is still dropping rapidly as others and I find
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:34:10PM +0200, Diego Calleja Garc?a wrote:
El Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:06:37 +0400 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi?:
I don't think ext2 is a serious option for servers of the sort that
Linux specializes in, which is probably why he didn't measure it.
Why?
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 04:30, Grant Miner wrote:
I tested the performace of various filesystems with a mozilla build tree
of 295MB, with primarily writing and copying operations. The test
system is Linux 2.6.0-test2, 512MB memory, 11531.85MB partition for
tests. Sync is run a few times
El Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:08:50 -0700 Mike Fedyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
But with servers, the larger your filesystem, the longer it will take to
fsck. And that is bad for uptime. Period.
Sure. But Han's don't benchmark ext2 because it's not an option isn't
a valid stament, at least to me.
Grant Miner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tested the performace of various filesystems with a mozilla build tree
of 295MB, with primarily writing and copying operations. The test
system is Linux 2.6.0-test2, 512MB memory, 11531.85MB partition for
tests. Sync is run a few times throughout
12 matches
Mail list logo
