[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.01.0912251042540.3483@bogon.housecafe.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 10:51:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>
To: Larry McVoy <lm@...mover.com>
cc: tytso@....edu, jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Grandi <pg_jf2@....for.sabi.co.UK>,
ext-users <ext3-users@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Jfs-discussion] benchmark results
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 at 08:22, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Dudes, sync() doesn't flush the fs cache, you have to unmount for that.
Thanks Larry, that was exactly my point[0] too, I should add that to the
results page to avoid further confusion or misassumptions:
> Well, I do "sync" after each operation, so the data should be on
> disk, but that doesn't mean it'll clear the filesystem buffers
> - but this doesn't happen that often in the real world too.
I realize however that on the same results page the bonnie++ tests were
run with a filesize *specifically* set to not utilize the filesystem
buffers any more but the measure *disk* performance while my "generic*
tests do something else - and thus cannot be compared to the bonnie++ or
hdparm results.
> No idea if that is still supported, but sync() is a joke for benchmarking.
I was using "sync" to make sure that the data "should" be on the disks
now, I did not want to flush the filesystem buffers during the "generic"
tests.
Thanks,
Christian.
[0] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg16878.html
--
BOFH excuse #210:
We didn't pay the Internet bill and it's been cut off.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists