linux-kernel - Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5

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: <200707302207.02672.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:07:02 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs,zfs on software raid 5

Justin Piszcz wrote:
> CONFIG:
>
> Software RAID 5 (400GB x 6): Default mkfs parameters for all filesystems.
> Kernel was 2.6.21 or 2.6.22, did these awhile ago.
> Hardware was SATA with PCI-e only, nothing on the PCI bus.
>
> ZFS was userspace+fuse of course.

Wow! Userspace and still that efficient.

> Reiser was V3.
> EXT4 was created using the recommended options on its project page.
>
> RAW:
>
> ext2,7760M,56728,96.3333,180505,51,85484,17.3333,50946.7,80.3333,235541,21
>.3333,373.667,0,16:100000:16/64,2354,27,0,0,8455.67,14.6667,2211.67,26.3333
>,0,0,9724,22.3333
> ext3,7760M,52702.7,94.3333,165005,60,82294.7,20.6667,52664,83.6667,258788,
>33.3333,335.8,0,16:100000:16/64,858.333,10.6667,10250.3,28.6667,4084,15,897
>,12.6667,4024.33,12.3333,2754,11.3333
> ext4,7760M,53129.7,95,164515,59.3333,101678,31.6667,62194.3,98.6667,266716
>,22.3333,405.767,0,16:100000:16/64,1963.67,23.6667,0,0,20859,73.6667,1731,2
>1.3333,9022,23.6667,16410,65.6667
> jfs,7760M,54606,92,191997,52,112764,33.6667,63585.3,99,274921,22.3333,383.
>8,0,16:100000:16/64,344,1,0,0,539.667,0,297.667,1,0,0,340,0
> reiserfs,7760M,51056.7,96,180607,67,106907,38.3333,61231.3,97.6667,275339,
>29.3333,441.167,0,16:100000:16/64,2516,60.6667,19174.3,60.6667,8194.33,54.3
>333,2011,42.6667,6963.67,19.6667,9168.33,68.6667
> xfs,7760M,52985.7,93,158342,45,79682,14,60547.3,98,239101,20.3333,359.667,
>0,16:100000:16/64,415,4,0,0,1774.67,10.6667,454,4.66667,14526.3,40,1572,12.
>6667

> zfs,7760M,

Dissecting some of these numbers:

  speed	%cpu  
> 25601,43.3333,
> 32198.7,4,
> 13266.3, 2,
> 44145.3,68.6667,
> 129278,9,
> 245.167,0,

> 16:100000:16/64,

  speed	%cpu  
> 218.333,2,
> 2698.33,11.6667,
> 7434.67,14.3333,
> 244,2,
> 2191.33,11.6667,
> 5613.33,13.3333

Extrapolating these %cpu number makes ZFS the fastest.

Are you sure these numbers are correct?


Thanks!

--
Al

-
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/