I started this thread a while back asking the same question, but unfortunately no Phoronix member made it clear if they were interested in pursuing such tests: http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=945
I am still interested (as well as many other users, I imagine) in a series of controlled file system benchmarks. Possible candidates are: ZFS, XFS, JFS, NTFS, Reiser3, Reiser4, Ext3, Ext4, Btrfs, and VMFS. I would also like to see EncFS, Loop-AES, and Truecrypt included in all tests possible.
Please speak up if there are any other worthy candidates for inclusion.
Very few file system benchmarks are scientific. We should be taking everything into account - not just making a bunch of partitions on the same hard drive, for example, because as we know, seek times vary from the center of the disk platter to the edge.
Every file system listed cannot be used in apple to apple configurations. Therefore, the most likely configuration - the one emulating real world configurations - should be used. We could test using RAIDs, UPSs (for crash recovery), and using hardware that may be advantageous to one file system or another. With all the potential these file systems give us, why not figure out how each one actually performs and compares in realistic circumstances.
1) performance, read, write, etc.
2) stability, load testing, etc.
3) feature tests - resizing, what works, etc.
4) organization and specifications of test criteria.
We should all provide input in order to create a good controlled study. We should be using standards (like the vanilla Kernel) in easy to reproduce configurations.
I hope one of you Phoronix officials respond. It seems you guys have the hardware and resources to pull something like this off. I'd be happy to help and run all the tests I can.
I am still interested (as well as many other users, I imagine) in a series of controlled file system benchmarks. Possible candidates are: ZFS, XFS, JFS, NTFS, Reiser3, Reiser4, Ext3, Ext4, Btrfs, and VMFS. I would also like to see EncFS, Loop-AES, and Truecrypt included in all tests possible.
Please speak up if there are any other worthy candidates for inclusion.
Very few file system benchmarks are scientific. We should be taking everything into account - not just making a bunch of partitions on the same hard drive, for example, because as we know, seek times vary from the center of the disk platter to the edge.
Every file system listed cannot be used in apple to apple configurations. Therefore, the most likely configuration - the one emulating real world configurations - should be used. We could test using RAIDs, UPSs (for crash recovery), and using hardware that may be advantageous to one file system or another. With all the potential these file systems give us, why not figure out how each one actually performs and compares in realistic circumstances.
1) performance, read, write, etc.
2) stability, load testing, etc.
3) feature tests - resizing, what works, etc.
4) organization and specifications of test criteria.
We should all provide input in order to create a good controlled study. We should be using standards (like the vanilla Kernel) in easy to reproduce configurations.
I hope one of you Phoronix officials respond. It seems you guys have the hardware and resources to pull something like this off. I'd be happy to help and run all the tests I can.
Comment