How much memory you have? How big is mozilla-1.5a.tar? Did you include
'sync' in the tests? It seems reiser4 numbers are mostly in-memory
operations and not all data flushed to disk while this is apparently not
true for ext3. BTW, XFS numbers would be also/more interesting, ext[23] is
pretty
Szakacsits Szabolcs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, if you have enough CPU capacity (aka you don't run anything else, just
bechmarking filesystems). Otherwise it seems to be slower. That's I was
refering to.
This has been the situation with reiserfs 3.5/3.6 before, and it got
resolved, or so
Grant Miner wrote:
Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
How much memory you have? How big is mozilla-1.5a.tar? Did you include
'sync' in the tests? It seems reiser4 numbers are mostly in-memory
operations and not all data flushed to disk while this is apparently not
true for ext3. BTW, XFS numbers would
On Tue, 08/05/03 at 23:08:31 +0200, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
BTW, from your numbers it seems ext3 gives better overall performance.
That is an incorrect statement. Reiserfs is KNOWN to be heavier on CPU
than other filesystems, it's benefit is not there, it's benefit is in
speed of operation,
mozilla-1.5a.tar is mozilla 1.5alpha source tar, uncompressed.
Partition mkfs.ext3 or mkfs.reiser4 --keys=SHORT is run before each run.
Linux is 2.6.0-test2.
untar mozilla-1.5a.tar (file is on a reiser3 partition):
ext3: 17.64s 28% cpu
reiser4: 10.79s 67% cpu
sum: reiser4 0.61x time, 2.39x cpu
Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
How much memory you have? How big is mozilla-1.5a.tar? Did you include
'sync' in the tests? It seems reiser4 numbers are mostly in-memory
operations and not all data flushed to disk while this is apparently not
true for ext3. BTW, XFS numbers would be also/more
