Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

File System Benchmarks in Linux

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jade View Post
    petabyte said:"if the exclusion of reiserfs4 from the mainline kernel is an attempt to keep us from a revolutionary file system, then why aren't ext4 and zfs being censored"

    Gee,.. you ask easy questions:

    1) ext4 is not even close to being as good, or as stable, as Reiser4 (I ran some tests, ext4 sux).
    Hearsay.

    2) zfs isn't part of Linux (maybe you could help and port it from Solaris).
    I didn't suggest it is part of linux. I was only comparing potentially great file systems.

    To make things explicit: Why censor things that people will not (want to) use anyway?
    More hearsay.
    petabyte said:"I agree that ext4 is no more ready for the kernel that reiserfs4."
    WRONG. REISER4 is easily ready for inclusion. EXT4 is NOT.
    Please do not act as if your corrections are the absolute fact; colorful font and the information the colorful font conveys are two different things entirely. You've presented some questionable performance tests, and thats it. This is unrelated to my claims. Maturity and stability are much more valid when analyzing what should and shouldn't be included in the kernel. I'm a big reiserfs fan too, but please don't perpetuate trolliness.
    Last edited by petabyte; 02-18-2007, 05:54 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm

      Code:
      .----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
      | Filesystem    | Copy Sources | Disk Usage | Copy Sources | Tar & Gzip | Unzip & Untar | Delete All |
      | Kernel        | Across       |    (MB)    | Within       | Sources    | Sources       | (seconds)  |
      |               | Partitions   |            | Partition    | (seconds)  | (seconds)     |            |
      |               | (seconds)    |            | (seconds)    |            |               |            |
      .----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
      |REISER4 2.6.13 |           148|         692|            55|          67|             25|          56|
      |REISER4 2.6.20 |           151|         692|            85|          81|             32|          65|
      | tails  2.6.13 |           148|         673|            63|          78|             33|          65|
      | tails  2.6.20 |           155|         673|            99|          81|             41|          79|
      |NTFS-3g 2.6.13 |          1333|         772|          1426|         585|            767|        194+|
      |NTFS-3g 2.6.20 |          1153|         772|          1488|         597|            844|        195+|
      |NTFS    WIN XP |           781|         779|           173|           X|              X|           X|
      |REISER3 2.6.13 |           184|         793|            98|          85|             63|          22|
      |REISER3 2.6.20 |           182|         793|           103|          81|             65|          23|
      |XFS     2.6.13 |           220|         799|           173|         119|             90|         106|
      |XFS     2.6.20 |           210|         799|           159|         109|             89|          88|
      |JFS     2.6.13 |           228|         806|           202|          95|             97|         127|
      |JFS     2.6.20 |           226|         806|           216|          95|            100|         133|
      |EXT4    2.6.20 |           174|         816|            70|          74|             42|          50|
      | extent 2.6.20 |           162|         806|            55|          69|             36|          32|
      |EXT3    2.6.13 |           182|         816|            74|          73|             43|          51|
      |EXT3    2.6.20 |           177|         816|            62|          76|             41|          47|
      |EXT2    2.6.13 |           201|         816|            82|          73|             39|          67|
      |EXT2    2.6.20 |           172|         816|            72|          72|             37|          52|
      |FAT32   2.6.13 |           253|         988|           158|         118|             81|          95|
      |FAT32   2.6.20 |           207|         988|           105|          97|             88|          57|
      .----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
      http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm

      Comment


      • #18
        Desktop: ext4.
        Server: XFS, and perhaps one day when it's ported, ZFS.

        Don't waste your time or energy with other useless FS unless you run some exotic setup like clusters etc.

        Comment


        • #19
          Don't waste your time or energy with anything other than REISER4 (with gzip or lzo compression).

          SMASHES the competition.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jade View Post
            Don't waste your time or energy with anything other than REISER4 (with gzip or lzo compression).

            SMASHES the competition.
            I'm all for using the best filesystem if it is available, but this type of black and white (or should we say red) argument you are attempting to make (rather poorly) is not the way to sway people over to your way of thinking. Even if you've done tests that show reiserFS is the be-all-end-all of filesystems, other people have assuredly done more involved tests that show ext does better than reiser under certain circumstances.

            Two things:
            1) there is no greatest filesystem that is better than all others
            2) lose the red font color

            Comment


            • #21
              Funny test, but NTFS-3g should be restested with 1.913, released on September 13, 2007. Speed was increased dramatically - especially on fragmented partitions.

              Comment


              • #22
                What about the cpu usage? The last thing I remember is, that reiserfs was the overall fastest but also the most CPU consuming file system.

                Comment


                • #23
                  reiser4 has too many problems in long term use. Also when you install grub into that partition you can get into real trouble...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    My benchies

                    http://www.ntlug.org/Presentations/F...temBenchmarks2

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Some of you might be interested in this short article I found a while ago while peeping through btrfs' mailing lists:

                      http://www.csamuel.org/articles/emer...ystems-200709/

                      It's a fairly recent comparison of most emerging (and old too) Linux filesystems. Bear in mind that some of them have made a lot of progress since then, particularly btrfs, at least according to the mailing lists.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Reiser 4

                        I'm a little bit confused...
                        I had always thougt, reiser4 was unstable.
                        And I really need a stable FS, a stable Hardware, I have enough trouble with unstable Software, I want to concentrate on other Tings.
                        But of course I would like to see the reiser4 FS in the Linux kernel. But not if I'd have to loose stability, performance in other parts of the OS and much time.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Lykos View Post
                          I'm a little bit confused...
                          I had always thougt, reiser4 was unstable.
                          And I really need a stable FS, a stable Hardware, I have enough trouble with unstable Software, I want to concentrate on other Tings.
                          But of course I would like to see the reiser4 FS in the Linux kernel. But not if I'd have to loose stability, performance in other parts of the OS and much time.
                          IMHO, reiser4 suffers from the lack of a group of committed developers. I know at least one guy from Namesys kept working on it, but progress has been slow. I think it will get merged to mainline someday, just don't expect that to happen soon.

                          If you want stability, pick any of the other filesystems according to your needs. There's no be-all and end-all solution when talking about filesystems. At least not now.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Hans Reiser And His Filesystems.

                            HANS REISER AND HIS FILESYSTEMS.

                            The HANS REISER Murder Trial. Timeline and Analysis.

                            http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/R...ryAnalysis.htm
                            http://linux.50webs.org/politics/Rei...ryAnalysis.htm

                            DISCUSS IT HERE:

                            http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7544

                            REISER4 HOWTOS.

                            Some Amazing Filesystem Benchmarks. Which Filesystem is Best?
                            http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm

                            Compiling yourself a 2.6.23 Kernel (with Reiser4 support). (2.6.24 Kernel Patch)
                            http://linuxhelp.150m.com/installs/compile-kernel.htm

                            Installing your favorite Linux Distro on Reiser4.
                            http://linuxhelp.150m.com/installs/i...on-reiser4.htm

                            Installing GRUB on a Reiser4 Partition.
                            http://linuxhelp.150m.com/installs/grub-reiser4.htm

                            AND OTHER GOOD STUFF AT:

                            http://linuxhelp.150m.com/
                            http://linux.50webs.org/

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I would strongly recommend against using reiser4 for real world use. I tried it and after several weeks it ate my filesystem and I was never able to recover data. Fortunately, that was on an experimental non-critical system.

                              Also note that in several benchmarks it is the only filesystem to crash and fail to complete the benchmark. For instance, from here:

                              http://www.csamuel.org/articles/emer...ystems-200709/

                              "The first attempt with reiser4 ended rather unhappily with a crash part way through the testing which killed the filesystem."

                              Which matches my personal experience wherein I found it very unstable.

                              I think there is potential to this filesystem, but it simply is not stable enough for production or desktop use at the moment. I think it's fine to play with on a non-critical experimental system, but based on my experience with it, I would urge caution if a stable FS is required.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Yes, the Reiser4 filesystem has been deliberately sabotaged on occasions. If you use one of Morton's older patches, you are likely to run into trouble,...

                                See, the Linux Kernel SABOTEURS @

                                http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9509
                                Last edited by Jade; 11-22-2008, 10:49 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X