Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: File System Benchmarks in Linux

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    20

    Default File System Benchmarks in Linux

    As Michael requested: a suggestion for Linux benchmarking:

    I would really like to see some file system comparisons next time you
    test a (stable) Linux kernel. Benchmarking Linux kernels is fine, but aside from the new features, significant performance gains are unlikely (especially when testing with games). It seems we know much less about the performance of the array of Linux file systems we have. The last good file system benchmarks I saw were fefe's: http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/, but it seems he's ceased his testing.

    I know it is difficult to control file system benchmarks in a fair way, but the guidance within fefe's extensive tests should surely get you started. I'd like to see reiserfs3, reiserfs4, ext3, ext4, xfs, jfs, and zfs in a line-up. I have lots of ideas so please reply with any questions.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by petabyte View Post
    As Michael requested: a suggestion for Linux benchmarking:

    I would really like to see some file system comparisons next time you
    test a (stable) Linux kernel.....

    I'd like to see reiserfs3, reiserfs4, ext3, ext4, xfs, jfs, and zfs in a line-up. I have lots of ideas so please reply with any questions.
    Funny, you should mention filesystem tests:

    Smaller is better:

    Code:
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Filesystem | Copy Sources | Disk Usage | Copy Sources | Tar & Gzip | Untar & Unzip | Delete All |
    |            | Across       | Usage      | Within       | Sources    | Sources       | (seconds)  |
    |            | Partitions   | (MB)       | Partition    | (seconds)  | (seconds)     |            |
    |            | (seconds)    |            | (seconds)    |            |               |            |
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | REISER4    |          148 |        692 |           55 |         68 |            27 |         52 |
    | NTFS-3g    |         1328 |        772 |         1348 |        600 |           776 |        73+ |
    | NTFS       |          781 |        779 |          173 |          X |             X |          X |
    | REISER3    |          184 |        793 |          100 |         87 |            61 |         11 |
    | XFS        |          221 |        799 |          173 |        120 |            91 |         57 |
    | JFS        |          290 |        806 |          547 |         87 |          1248 |         89 |
    | EXT2       |          204 |        816 |           81 |         73 |            40 |         24 |
    | EXT3       |          181 |        816 |           77 |         77 |            46 |         26 |
    | FAT32      |          252 |        988 |          162 |        126 |            88 |         19 |
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    REISER4 wins (by far) in ALL the important categories.

    It is not clear why NTFS preformed so poorly.

    Everyone knew FAT32 was a dog.

    The reiser4 filesystem clearly outperforms all the other filesystems, in almost all the measured categories. Using reiser4, rather than ext3, saves you a massive 816 - 692 = 124 MB of disk space (a 15% saving, mainly, from eliminating block alignment wastage). Not only do you save 124 MB, but your copy is finished significantly quicker.

    As you can see, REISER4 is a truly remarkable filesystem.

    This is the real reason that REISER4 has not been included in the Linux kernel.
    This is the real reason that Hans Reiser languishes in an Oakland prison cell at this time.


    From http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm or,

    http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/res...benchmarks.htm

    ALSO SOME BONNIE++ RESULTS

    Code:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Version 1.93c               Sequential Create               Random Create        
    SuSE 10.0              Create     Read     Delete    Create     Read     Delete  
    files:max              /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    REISER4 128:131072:0    779  21   893  19  1554   9   126   4    65   1   781   4
    REISER3 128:131072:0    288   7    72   1   382   2   283   7    64   1   138   1
     notail 128:131072:0    279   7    71   1   343   2   293   7    64   1   140   1
    XFS     128:131072:0    222   3   525   8   914   5   280   4    71   1   111   1
    EXT2    128:131072:0    263  53   764  13   766   2   265  53    83   8   133  11
    EXT3    128:131072:0    224   5    87   1   172   1   224   6    86   1   167   1
    FAT32   128:131072:0/5   49  93    94  82   294  97    72  89    34  30    94  95
    NTFS-3g 128:131072:0     70   0    77   0  4744   3    59   0    38   0   435   0
    JFS     128:131072:0     57   0   421   6    37   0    19   0    70   1    22   0
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Version 1.93c              Sequential Output         Sequential Input    Random 
    Concurrency   1       Per Chr    Block    Rewrite   Per Chr    Block     Seeks  
    Machine         Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    REISER4           1G   247  97 57710  12 28317  10   405  99 63709  10 210.3   6
    REISER3           1G   541  98 52162  14 27133   6  1566  91 63820   7 218.0   3
     notail           1G   518  99 53709  14 25820   5  1565  83 58242   6 219.0   3
    XFS               1G   753  99 58613  11 27075   5  1242  95 63546   5 197.7   2
    EXT2              1G  1103  98 54209   8 27425   5  1475  90 62867   5 215.3   2
    EXT3              1G   399  99 48357  16 27124   5  1459  92 63209   6 213.9   3
    FAT32             1G   966  98 50540  20 24478  10  1553  93 63883  15 195.1   5
    NTFS-3g           1G    26   6 49060   7 20383   3  1629  93 57937   4 169.5   0
    JFS               1G  1141  98 56314   9 27866   4  1582  92 63839   5 220.2   2
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Thats excluding ext4 and zfs. If the phoronix people get around to testing newer versions of these with a newer kernel...That would be cool.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    72

    Default indeed, zfs raid z vs ext[3|4] and LVM

    Quote Originally Posted by petabyte View Post
    Thats excluding ext4 and zfs. If the phoronix people get around to testing newer versions of these with a newer kernel...That would be cool.
    comparing ZFS with raidz performance vs ext4+lvm or xfs+lvm. does reiserFS handle powercuts yet, then maybe I'll consider it.?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Ext3, Reiser and JFS yet still even XFS all handle power cuts.

    Bad ribbon cables, faulty harddrives, well that is another thing.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2

    Default So, which filesystem to pick?

    Hi all,
    I'm in the process of migrating my server from Windows 2003 x64 with 3 VMWare VMs to Linux with the VMs in KVM. I thought as I'd like to try KVM that Fedora 12 would be a good host to use. Fedora by default uses Ext4, but from all these tests I wonder if I should not just use Ext3 for all my filesystems. I'll have a LVM of 2 disks which will contain movies, music, software etc and one separate disk (7200 RPM, while the others are 5400) for my VMs. What would you guys use as the filesystem?
    One extra remark. I never see NTFS taken along in the benchmarks. I thought that the current NTFS driver for Linux performs quite well, or doesn't it? If NTFS would be a good choice, than that one would have my preference as then I don't have to move any data around (currently all drives have NTFS as filesystem).
    Last edited by martdj; 01-10-2010 at 10:03 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Reiser4's performance is awesome. I'd use it if its latency was better and it was stable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade View Post
    This is the real reason that REISER4 has not been included in the Linux kernel.
    No. Reiser4 has it's own built in replacement for kernel code that the other linux filesystems use. That replacement would be redundant - the kernel devs would rather reiser4 and the other file systems share as much code as possible. They also said it was too unstable. That's why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade View Post
    This is the real reason that Hans Reiser languishes in an Oakland prison cell at this time.
    Name one person/entity with the motive to do what you're implying. Let me guess - it's gotta be either Elvis or Big Foot, right? No wait, it's probably that massive government conspiracy with the aliens. Reiser4 protects you from being kidnapped and probed, and they can't have that can they?
    Last edited by StringCheesian; 02-05-2007 at 01:27 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    One day I'll reach Alaska, or die trying!
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Jade: you also forgot to mention that Reiser4 is unstable as hell. Sure, it performs nicely, no doubt about that. But would you really trust your data on a fs that can f*ck itself over any second? Not me, thanks.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1c3d0g View Post
    Jade: you also forgot to mention that Reiser4 is unstable as hell. Sure, it performs nicely, no doubt about that. But would you really trust your data on a fs that can f*ck itself over any second? Not me, thanks.
    I was thinking the same thing. It's fast, maybe because it doesn't handle thing securely. I'd be interested in seeing ext4 performance as well.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

    1c3d0g said: "you also forgot to mention that Reiser4 is unstable as hell."

    May I politely suggest that you are mistaken.

    If not, please produce the studies that show the purported Reiser4 instability.

    I have seen ZERO evidence that Reiser4 is unstable.

    I have noted that Reiser4 has been deliberately sabotaged in all of Andrew Morton's recent Linux kernels (linux-2.6.20-rc1-mm1 thru rc4), and even though many complaints can be found on the internet, no one has bothered to respond to, or fix, the problem(s).

    StringCheesian said: "Name one person/entity with the motive to do what you're implying."

    Hans Reiser is a Jew who is being slandered and set up by Jews.

    His problem is that his product Reiser4, is much better than NTFS.

    This is a problem for Microsoft and Microsoft owners.

    The visible face of these people is "the Jews" (the secret society, not the religion, or having a Jewish mother (although, of course, the last are closely related to the first)).

    The GPL prevents the usual tactic of buying him out (and turning Reiser4 into NTFS2).

    Without the GPL, Reiser might be a rich man, and Microsoft might be extolling the virtues of it's new filesystem.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •