Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

File-System Benchmarks On The Intel X25-E SSD

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

  • File-System Benchmarks On The Intel X25-E SSD

    Phoronix: File-System Benchmarks On The Intel X25-E SSD

    Late last month we looked at the Intel X25-E Extreme SSD on Linux. We ran this high-performance solid-state drive within a System76 Serval Notebook and compared its performance to a Seagate Momentus 7200.2 SATA HDD. During that testing we were just using the default EXT3 file-system, but now we have taken the Intel X25-E SSD for another spin as we looked at its performance when using the ReiserFS, JFS, XFS, EXT3, and EXT4 file-systems.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13600

  • #2
    I'd love to see reiser4 with cryptcompress on when your pulling in btrfs testing.
    A basic mkfs.reiser4 -o create=ccreg40,compress=lzo1 for example.

    It'll up the cpu usage, but it'd be interesting to see how much faster reiser4 is when seek times arn't involved.

    Comment


    • #3
      Is it possible that files for compilation tests are all in cache already, so Kernel never touch file system code anyway, hence same results across the board? I don't see in TFA any measures taken for clearing cache between tests.

      Comment


      • #4
        I wonder what could be the performance of the file systems specialized for solid state drives (JFFS2, YAFFS2, LogFS, UBIFS...). Any reason for not including them in this benchmark ?

        Comment


        • #5
          Where's Reiser4?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gentooer View Post
            Where's Reiser4?
            Far away from Linux kernel...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              Far away from Linux kernel...
              ... deeply burried somewhere in california.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by _pma View Post
                I wonder what could be the performance of the file systems specialized for solid state drives (JFFS2, YAFFS2, LogFS, UBIFS...). Any reason for not including them in this benchmark ?
                Because they need direct access to the flash memory (via MTD), while SSD expose themselves as normal HDs (i.e. block devices).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hey Michael, can you do an article about ATI Stream Software Development Kit (SDK)since it's the amd counterpart againts NVIDIA Cuda?

                  http://developer.amd.com/gpu/ATIStre...s/default.aspx

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by _pma View Post
                    ... deeply burried somewhere in california.
                    if both is true - so what ?

                    it's still by far the best filesystem out there (btrfs doesn't count yet)

                    that criteria that a filesystem's included in the linux-kernel doesn't mean that it's superior compared to other filesystems

                    also the benchmarks are not fair, jfs doesn't support barriers from what I know

                    and ext3, ... have no support for extents / delayed allocation, ...

                    so when comparing those filesystems the differences have to be pointed out

                    also: WHERE ON EARTH IS SPACE EFFICIENCY / SPACE USAGE compared ?

                    especially with the early SSDs space is pretty precious and if you can store double compared with another filesystem it's worth gold ...

                    besides all of this ranting:


                    thanks very much for these benchmarks, they at least give an superficial possibility to compare the filesystems to each other

                    Comment


                    • #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

                              Working...
                              X