From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261280AbTD1VV3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:21:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261292AbTD1VV3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:21:29 -0400 Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.48]:41724 "EHLO mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261280AbTD1VV2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:21:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:41:04 -0400 To: reiser@namesys.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [benchmarks] various filesystems on 2.5.68 Message-ID: <20030428214104.GA20162@rushmore> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i From: rwhron@earthlink.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > You should benchmark us with notail option if you want it to be fair > compared to less space conserving filesystems. Thanks, I'll start using notail on reiserfs. >> ----- Create ----- ---- Delete ---- >> files /sec %CPU Eff /sec %CPU Eff >>2.5.68-ext3 65536 10828 70.3 15395 21160 98.0 2159 >>2.5.68-reiserfs 131072 2935 37.3 7861 1787 25.7 6963 > What is the meaning of the files parameter, and why is our number > different from the other filesystems? I'll fix that too. reiserfs has been more efficient than ext2 with a lot of files. Using less than 131072 files wasn't giving results for some tests on reiserfs. -- Randy Hron http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html