[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121030153655.GB12831@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:36:55 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@...eyko.com>
Cc: Sooman Jeong <77smart@...yang.ac.kr>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance
Hi!
> >> * buffered write (1GB file), 4KByte write
> >
> > Ok, f2fs is bit faster on desktop PC and a bit slower on S3. Good.
> >
> >
> >> * write + fsync (100MB file), 4KByte write
> >
> > Ok, random access on VFAT is a lot faster on S3 (and only very
> > a bit on PC). Any idea why results are so different between PC and S3?
> > Does F2FS need significantly more CPU? Does F2FS need significantly
> > more RAM? (Booting PC with low mem= option my answer that).
> Yes, I think that f2fs really needs more CPU and memory for
> functioning. The f2fs keeps more metadata as VFAT, as I
> understand. Moreover, it manages six active logs at runtime and GC
> can works in background. All of it needs in more CPU power.
Thanks for info.
Out of curiosity, how does F2FS perform on low-end SD cards (compared
to VFAT)? I know Kingstons and similar can have only single group open
for writing... VFAT still works there, does F2FS?
Thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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