Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Performance Of EXT4 Then & Now

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

  • kingN0thing
    replied
    another thing that I remember from earlier linux days:

    ext2/3 were mostly CPU-bound which means you can increase performance vastly by adding more CPU power. Other file-systems (ie. ReiserFS) are IO-bound which means that you can vastly improve performance by adding a faster disk.

    The test platform (Atom 330) might thus be inherently 'unfair' for ext2/3/4. And do not forget that advantages in CPU speed are a magnitude higher than advantages in storage technology.

    Leave a comment:


  • frantaylor
    replied
    Benchmarking bogus code

    These benchmarks are tough to process by themselves. The older benchmarks are really invalid because the code has a fatal flaw: no data safety. You can make ANY filesystem look fast if you are only pretending to write the data to disk. You might as well benchmark the write performance of /dev/null.

    Comparing to other filesystems would be much more interesting.

    Every filesystem has the problem of committing data to disk. What is interesting is how they handle it.

    Leave a comment:


  • kingN0thing
    replied
    Are you really complaining that kernel developers have chosen safe over fast defaults?

    I dunno, but I <3 my data and would rather prefer that I can access it even if some unlucky power-out happened on my laptop.

    If you don't mind that, change the mount option.. that's what it's here for. But the defaults are sane, you can't expect a newbie user to manually alter that kind of thing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X