I am doing some similar FS comparisons, but using IOzone
(www.iozone.org)
instead of Netbench.
Some preliminary (mostly raw) data are available at:
http://www.osdlab.org/reports/journal_fs/
(updated today).
I am using a Linux 2.4.7 on a 4-way VA Linux system.
It has 4 GB of RAM, but I have limited it to 256 MB in
accordance with IOzone run rules.
However, I suspect that this causes IOzone to measure disk
subsystem or PCI bus performance more than it does FS performance.
Any comments on this?
Default configurations for all filesystems were used.
Future:
. measure operations/second
. kernel profiling
. measure CPU utilization for each FS
. make graphs more readable
. do some FS comparison graphs
Regards,
~Randy
Andrew Theurer wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I recently starting doing some fs performance comparisons with Netbench
> and the journal filesystems available in 2.4: Reiserfs, JFS, XFS, and
> Ext3. I thought some of you may be interested in the results. Below
> is the README from the http://lse.sourceforge.net. There is a kernprof
> for each test, and I am working on the lockmeter stuff right now. Let
> me know if you have any comments.
>
> Andrew Theurer
> IBM LTC
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/