Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Benchmarking filesystems

  • Subject: Re: Benchmarking filesystems
  • From: "Larry Qualig" <lqualig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: 12 Jan 2006 08:05:04 -0800
  • Complaints-to: groups-abuse@google.com
  • In-reply-to: <dq5u17$id7$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>
  • Injection-info: g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=; posting-account=I0FyeA0AAABAUAjJ9vi7laKRssUBoQA3
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: http://groups.google.com
  • References: <1137078978.512086.279870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <dq5u17$id7$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>
  • User-agent: G2/0.2
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1071111
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [Larry Qualig] on Thursday 12 January 2006 15:16 \__
> > Lots of numbers... lots of charts.
> >
> > http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz
> >
> > - LQ

> Intersting page. I have been wondering about performance issues and it seems
> like in the real/practical tests (those which correspond to many
> frequently-encountered situations) Reiser wins, especially version 4.

In *most* of the tests they ran Reiser did rather poorly. Which was a
bit surprising IMO given all that I've heard about the FS.

>  A comparison with NTFS and FATs would have been valuable too.

I was a bit disappointed this was missing. It would have really
completed the picture. Interesting that the hardware was somewhat dated
(P3 500Mhz) - Seems intentional perhaps that's so CPU usage would be
more pronounced.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index