[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5c49b0ed0607311621i54f1c46fh9137f8955c9ea4be@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:21:28 -0700
From: "Nate Diller" <nate.diller@...il.com>
To: "Matthias Andree" <matthias.andree@....de>
Cc: "Adrian Ulrich" <reiser4@...nkenlights.ch>,
"Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@....utfsm.cl>, ipso@...ppymail.ca,
reiser@...esys.com, lkml@...productions.com, jeff@...zik.org,
tytso@....edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
reiserfs-list@...esys.com
Subject: Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
On 7/31/06, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@....de> wrote:
> Adrian Ulrich wrote:
>
> > See also: http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt
> >
> > A quick'n'dirty ZFS-vs-UFS-vs-Reiser3-vs-Reiser4-vs-Ext3 'benchmark'
>
> Whatever Postmark does, this looks pretty besides the point.
why's that? postmark is one of the standard benchmarks...
> Are these actual transactions with the "D"urability guarantee?
> 3000/s doesn't look too much like you're doing synchronous I/O (else
> figures around 70/s perhaps 100/s would be more adequate), and cache
> exercise is rather irrelevant for databases that manage real (=valuable)
> data...
Data:
204.62 megabytes read (8.53 megabytes per second)
271.49 megabytes written (11.31 megabytes per second)
looks pretty I/O bound to me, 11.31 MB/s isn't exactly your latest DDR
RAM bandwidth. as far as the synchronous I/O question, Reiser4 in
this case acts more like a log-based FS. That allows it to "overlap"
synchronous operations that are being submitted by multiple threads.
NATE
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists