Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

File-System Benchmarks On The Intel X25-E SSD

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    encoding for filesystem benchmarking?

    Why are those encoding tests used again and again to benchmark file-system performance? I mean all of the do basically linear reading/writing, and not only in this test the results never differ more than 10% -> useless.

    What I would care more about is moving/creating/deleting files, system bootup time, kernel unpack&compile, find over a whole system ... something which really stresses a FS and the IO subsystem.

    I also don't run aalib stuff in my terminal to benchmark my graphic hardware

    - Clemens
    Last edited by Linuxhippy; 03-16-2009, 02:31 PM.

    Comment


    • #12
      Try Btrfs, just to see how phenomenally it SUCKS

      Just wait till you add Btrfs in the mix -- it's going to be the top-down LOSER compared to all other Linux filesystems.

      Comment


      • #13
        And what about power consumption?

        It would be interested also to have for each of those tests the power consumption measured so that we could have a kind of unit speed/Watt. This would be useful for laptop owners.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by stan View Post
          Just wait till you add Btrfs in the mix -- it's going to be the top-down LOSER compared to all other Linux filesystems.
          Same ZFS, but other things count here.

          Comment


          • #15
            I can't wait to see the benchmarks on the btrfs filesystem. I hope it's not a bust.

            Edit: is "btrfs filesystem" redundant? lol

            Comment


            • #16
              a) did you turn on barriers for ext3? Or did you turn OFF barriers for xfs, reiserfs, ext4?
              b) did you know that the intel ssd becomes SLOWER after a certain amount of i/o a day?
              c) if yes, which was the frist fs tested? which one last?

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by GreatWalrus View Post
                Edit: is "btrfs filesystem" redundant? lol
                Btrfs is going to have waaaay to many features to be fast, Tux3 will hopefully be fast

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
                  Why are those encoding tests used again and again to benchmark file-system performance? I mean all of the do basically linear reading/writing, and not only in this test the results never differ more than 10% -> useless.

                  What I would care more about is moving/creating/deleting files, system bootup time, kernel unpack&compile, find over a whole system ... something which really stresses a FS and the IO subsystem.

                  I also don't run aalib stuff in my terminal to benchmark my graphic hardware

                  - Clemens
                  I did that - reiser4 won. ext3 is slow. xfs is slow as soon as you have to deal with lots of small files.

                  Others did too - look at this one:

                  http://bulk.fefe.de/lk2006/

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    CPU usage

                    I thought CPU usage is quite important to be benchmarked, since it corresponds to power consumption, which is a big concern from laptop users.

                    I should not be the only one who were looking forward to seeing CPU usage test when next time brtfs is involved.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by energyman View Post
                      a) did you turn on barriers for ext3? Or did you turn OFF barriers for xfs, reiserfs, ext4?
                      b) did you know that the intel ssd becomes SLOWER after a certain amount of i/o a day?
                      c) if yes, which was the frist fs tested? which one last?
                      Well based on how results are combined with PTS and Phoronix Global, I assume the order was ReiserFS, JFS, XFS, EXT3, and EXT4.

                      With Phoronix Test Suite, a benchmark is done on ReiserFS (a file is created with the results), a benchmark is done on JFS (the ReiserFS file is appended to add JFS results), a benchmark is done on XFS (original file appended to add XFS after ReiserFS and JFS), and so on.

                      Here's an example of a test that I did last night, in which I added my ram results on my Inspiron 1501 to results of two other PC's: http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...53-16357-24910

                      You could also add your ram benchmark to this by running
                      Code:
                      phoronix-test-suite benchmark brian-22653-16357-24910
                      Also, (a way to eliminate the IO issue you claim) Phoronix could have used a host system with many partitions set up on the Intel SSD, one for each file system. Then they wouldn't have to reboot (and install) to test the next file system. This would also mean that they could have ran each test for each file system before moving to the next test, eliminating the disadvantage of one file system experiencing slower speeds due to IO loss (instead, all file systems would experience slower speeds for the next test).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X