linux-ext4 - Re: Ext4 benchmarks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <460A79C2.6030406@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:20:50 -0500
From:	"Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
To:	Jean-Pierre Dion <jean-pierre.dion@...l.net>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Ext4 benchmarks

Jean-Pierre Dion wrote:
> Hi Jose,
>
> thank you for the feedback.
>
> We took your remarks into account and we are doing some perfs with
> iozone (close to desktop activity, mono-thread) and ffsb (allows to run 
> benchs
> in a multi-thread activity like a server does, different blocks sizes...).
>
> We compare ext3 and ext4 (with extents, w/ and w/o del alloc...)...
>
> We will publish the results on bullopensource.org
>   

Hi Jean-Pierre,

While it may be to late for the purposes of your OLS paper, one thing 
that doesn't seem to be getting much attention is the performance of a 
file system while doing many meta-data operations or throughput testing 
during heavy journal log activity.  I believe that IOzone is very 
limited in testing this and FFSB isn't much better at it either.  
Eventually, I plan to add support in FFSB to create workload profile 
were one can select a weight balance of these types of operations.

Is this something that you are already doing for this round of testing?

-JRS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html