* [benchmarks] various filesystems on 2.5.68
@ 2003-04-24 12:47 rwhron
2003-04-28 12:53 ` Hans Reiser
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: rwhron @ 2003-04-24 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Filesystem benchmarks on 2.5.68 for 5 filesystem types.
Same LUN (RAID0) and partition used for each filesystem.
QLogic 2200 Fibre channel.
Quad P3 700 Xeon with 3.75 GB RAM.
System not rebooted between filesystem runs.
Every filesystem was best in at least one test. Filesystems
exhibit very different performance characteristics for some
workloads.
mount options
mount -t ext2 -o defaults,noatime /dev/sdc1 /fs1
mount -t ext3 -o defaults,noatime,data=writeback /dev/sdc1 /fs1
mount -t reiserfs -o defaults,noatime /dev/sdc1 /fs1
mount -t jfs -o defaults,noatime /dev/sdc1 /fs1
mount -t xfs -o logbufs=8,logbsize=32768,noatime /dev/sdc1 /fs1
mkfs command
mke2fs -q /dev/sdc1
mke2fs -q -j -J size=400 /dev/sdc1
yes "y" | mkreiserfs /dev/sdc1 >/tmp/mkr.out 2>&1
jfs_mkfs -q /dev/sdc1
mkfs.xfs -l size=32768b -f /dev/sdc1
Very recent version of xfsprogs/jfsutils/reiserfsprogs/e2fsprogs.
XFS mount/mkfs options came from the XFS FAQ and are very desireable
for these tests based on an earlier run without them. If anyone
knows better than default options for jfs or another fs, I'd like
to hear.
dbench executed 5 times.
dbench 64 processes Average High Low
2.5.68-ext2 253.06 254.87 251.10 MB/second
2.5.68-xfs 141.98 143.03 140.12
2.5.68-ext3 130.83 136.38 125.10
2.5.68-reiserfs 90.43 100.91 79.81
2.5.68-jfs 17.89 19.91 16.59
dbench 192 process Average High Low
2.5.68-ext2 208.58 219.77 189.81 MB/second
2.5.68-xfs 111.59 112.76 110.94
2.5.68-ext3 111.47 126.79 91.38
2.5.68-reiserfs 61.31 64.45 57.73
2.5.68-jfs 10.11 10.32 9.80
bonnie++-1.02c was executed 3 times.
--------------------- Sequential Output ------------------
---- Per Char ----- ------ Block ----- ---- Rewrite ----
Kernel Size MB/sec %CPU Eff MB/sec %CPU Eff MB/sec %CPU Eff
2.5.68-ext2 8192 9.50 99.0 9.60 68.62 53.3 129 15.92 17.0 94
2.5.68-xfs 8192 9.43 100.0 9.43 64.66 52.7 123 15.97 18.0 89
2.5.68-jfs 8192 9.26 99.0 9.35 65.56 57.3 114 16.13 16.0 101
2.5.68-ext3 8192 8.85 96.7 9.16 59.20 68.3 87 16.16 18.0 90
2.5.68-reiserfs 8192 8.59 99.0 8.68 57.11 91.3 63 16.56 21.0 79
-------- Sequential Input ---------- ----- Random -----
---- Per Char --- ----- Block ----- ----- Seeks -----
Kernel Size MB/sec %CPU Eff MB/sec %CPU Eff /sec %CPU Eff
2.5.68-xfs 8192 9.33 98.3 9.5 26.88 20.0 134 595.6 3.00 19854
2.5.68-jfs 8192 9.29 98.7 9.4 27.17 19.0 143 536.3 3.00 17877
2.5.68-ext2 8192 9.38 99.0 9.5 26.98 19.3 140 502.5 3.00 16750
2.5.68-reiserfs 8192 9.23 99.0 9.3 27.21 22.0 124 487.6 3.00 16254
2.5.68-ext3 8192 9.37 99.0 9.5 26.95 19.7 137 457.2 3.00 15241
Htree in ext3 helps a lot in the bonnie++ small files test.
---------------- Sequential ----------
----- 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
2.5.68-jfs 65536 2837 16.3 17367 1272 8.0 1589
2.5.68-xfs 65536 446 8.0 5571 370 4.7 7935
2.5.68-ext2 65536 151 99.0 153 61933 99.3 6234
-------------- Random ---------------
----- Create ---- ---- Delete ----
/sec %CPU Eff /sec %CPU Eff
2.5.68-ext3 15099 95.3 15838 19131 92.0 20795
2.5.68-reiserfs 2828 37.3 7574 617 11.7 5286
2.5.68-jfs 853 16.7 5118 446 5.3 8362
2.5.68-xfs 248 5.3 4650 958 14.7 6530
2.5.68-ext2 155 100.0 155 536 100.0 536
tiobench-0.3.3 average of 3 runs.
Unit information
================
File size = 8192 megabytes
Blk Size = 4096 bytes
Rate = megabytes per second
CPU% = percentage of CPU used during the test
Latency = milliseconds
Lat% = percent of requests that took longer than X seconds
CPU Eff = Rate divided by CPU% - throughput per cpu load
ext3 on tiobench sequential read and write tests degrade much more than other
filesystems as thread count increases.
Sequential Reads
Num Avg Maximum Lat% Lat% CPU
Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >2s >10s Eff
------------------ --- ------------------------------------------------------------
2.5.68-jfs 1 29.11 12.72% 0.400 824.58 0.00000 0.00000 229
2.5.68-ext2 1 28.77 13.23% 0.405 592.14 0.00000 0.00000 217
2.5.68-ext3 1 28.75 13.42% 0.405 310.84 0.00000 0.00000 214
2.5.68-xfs 1 28.63 14.06% 0.407 614.38 0.00000 0.00000 203
2.5.68-reiserfs 1 28.34 15.14% 0.411 103.27 0.00000 0.00000 187
2.5.68-xfs 8 55.23 29.24% 1.676 898.05 0.00000 0.00000 189
2.5.68-jfs 8 52.18 25.05% 1.776 551.02 0.00000 0.00000 208
2.5.68-ext2 8 36.65 18.04% 2.542 945.37 0.00000 0.00000 203
2.5.68-reiserfs 8 30.25 17.12% 3.078 387.68 0.00000 0.00000 177
2.5.68-ext3 8 17.52 9.64% 5.191 1641.67 0.00000 0.00000 182
2.5.68-xfs 16 51.20 26.32% 3.543 452.31 0.00000 0.00000 195
2.5.68-jfs 16 40.35 18.42% 4.631 1102.43 0.00000 0.00000 219
2.5.68-ext2 16 30.56 14.94% 6.080 1224.19 0.00000 0.00000 204
2.5.68-reiserfs 16 27.06 15.38% 6.878 527.56 0.00000 0.00000 176
2.5.68-ext3 16 12.25 6.74% 14.592 2913.91 0.00000 0.00000 182
2.5.68-xfs 32 49.75 25.97% 7.455 1092.61 0.00000 0.00000 192
2.5.68-jfs 32 40.16 18.76% 9.278 1456.36 0.00000 0.00000 214
2.5.68-ext2 32 27.74 13.84% 13.376 1498.48 0.00000 0.00000 200
2.5.68-reiserfs 32 27.52 15.88% 13.404 1290.43 0.00000 0.00000 173
2.5.68-ext3 32 8.58 4.81% 39.576 5807.37 0.00010 0.00000 178
2.5.68-xfs 64 48.77 25.80% 14.958 1395.14 0.00000 0.00000 189
2.5.68-jfs 64 39.07 18.44% 18.980 1660.61 0.00000 0.00000 212
2.5.68-ext2 64 28.47 14.54% 25.294 6204.46 0.00005 0.00000 196
2.5.68-reiserfs 64 28.04 16.52% 26.041 6404.23 0.00010 0.00000 170
2.5.68-ext3 64 7.72 4.34% 81.979 13933.64 0.42934 0.00000 178
2.5.68-xfs 128 53.35 28.08% 25.248 19055.92 0.00911 0.00000 190
2.5.68-ext2 128 29.87 14.99% 41.715 17752.22 0.10242 0.00000 199
2.5.68-reiserfs 128 26.80 15.75% 51.793 20489.34 0.08730 0.00000 170
2.5.68-jfs 128 21.89 11.14% 38.273 31753.64 0.21539 0.00010 196
2.5.68-ext3 128 7.53 4.25% 152.080 25189.28 3.73587 0.00000 177
2.5.68-xfs 256 49.76 25.96% 43.281 212928.33 0.04200 0.03940 192
2.5.68-ext2 256 34.10 16.88% 64.697 51122.80 1.16358 0.01163 202
2.5.68-reiserfs 256 28.61 16.41% 88.051 39261.35 2.15474 0.00110 174
2.5.68-jfs 256 13.66 7.23% 98.549 78374.72 1.67956 0.12674 189
2.5.68-ext3 256 7.69 4.29% 284.109 50816.60 4.39759 0.02899 179
Random Reads
Num Avg Maximum Lat% Lat% CPU
Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >2s >10s Eff
------------------ --- ------------------------------------------------------------
2.5.68-jfs 1 1.02 0.81% 11.433 82.10 0.00000 0.00000 126
2.5.68-xfs 1 0.98 0.94% 12.004 121.43 0.00000 0.00000 103
2.5.68-reiserfs 1 0.95 1.01% 12.379 105.37 0.00000 0.00000 93
2.5.68-ext2 1 0.84 0.75% 14.003 120.98 0.00000 0.00000 111
2.5.68-ext3 1 0.79 0.81% 14.818 131.49 0.00000 0.00000 97
2.5.68-reiserfs 8 5.21 5.28% 16.755 129.90 0.00000 0.00000 99
2.5.68-xfs 8 5.17 5.16% 17.214 122.78 0.00000 0.00000 100
2.5.68-ext2 8 4.56 4.29% 19.193 122.64 0.00000 0.00000 106
2.5.68-jfs 8 4.40 3.94% 19.089 134.59 0.00000 0.00000 112
2.5.68-ext3 8 4.31 4.15% 17.789 115.60 0.00000 0.00000 104
2.5.68-xfs 16 4.73 3.58% 33.611 156.75 0.00000 0.00000 132
2.5.68-reiserfs 16 4.54 4.63% 37.601 175.51 0.00000 0.00000 98
2.5.68-ext2 16 4.34 3.95% 40.724 212.21 0.00000 0.00000 110
2.5.68-jfs 16 3.97 2.73% 45.396 228.88 0.00000 0.00000 145
2.5.68-ext3 16 3.75 3.43% 40.207 205.22 0.00000 0.00000 109
2.5.68-xfs 32 5.24 4.37% 65.502 222.93 0.00000 0.00000 120
2.5.68-ext3 32 5.01 3.95% 51.225 232.74 0.00000 0.00000 127
2.5.68-jfs 32 4.02 2.88% 87.207 292.91 0.00000 0.00000 140
2.5.68-reiserfs 32 3.48 4.13% 89.811 352.00 0.00000 0.00000 84
2.5.68-ext2 32 3.28 3.40% 98.453 335.85 0.00000 0.00000 96
2.5.68-xfs 64 4.89 3.85% 130.900 375.30 0.00000 0.00000 127
2.5.68-ext2 64 4.20 3.87% 137.963 647.04 0.00000 0.00000 108
2.5.68-reiserfs 64 4.16 4.45% 140.436 658.08 0.00000 0.00000 94
2.5.68-jfs 64 3.60 2.87% 155.518 437.17 0.00000 0.00000 126
2.5.68-ext3 64 3.04 2.92% 204.014 426.88 0.00000 0.00000 104
2.5.68-reiserfs 128 4.29 4.64% 241.137 2025.61 0.00000 0.00000 92
2.5.68-ext2 128 4.18 4.03% 245.390 1693.66 0.00000 0.00000 104
2.5.68-ext3 128 3.99 3.92% 257.859 690.20 0.00000 0.00000 102
2.5.68-xfs 128 3.69 4.23% 324.594 678.64 0.00000 0.00000 87
2.5.68-jfs 128 3.34 3.13% 230.542 504.20 0.00000 0.00000 107
2.5.68-ext2 256 4.96 4.47% 285.231 6121.11 0.78125 0.00000 111
2.5.68-reiserfs 256 4.67 5.98% 264.789 3142.23 0.00000 0.00000 78
2.5.68-ext3 256 4.07 3.84% 411.153 7474.41 3.90624 0.00000 106
2.5.68-xfs 256 3.28 3.79% 516.536 8886.39 5.85938 0.00000 87
2.5.68-jfs 256 3.25 3.32% 480.130 8724.36 4.11458 0.00000 98
Sequential Writes
Num Avg Maximum Lat% Lat% CPU
Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >2s >10s Eff
------------------ --- ------------------------------------------------------------
2.5.68-jfs 1 55.65 46.98% 0.197 3157.23 0.00000 0.00000 118
2.5.68-xfs 1 55.46 46.92% 0.186 70311.02 0.00030 0.00030 118
2.5.68-ext2 1 55.43 41.59% 0.173 3228.31 0.00000 0.00000 133
2.5.68-reiserfs 1 53.70 90.02% 0.206 2081.70 0.00000 0.00000 60
2.5.68-ext3 1 53.22 63.22% 0.207 15222.62 0.00101 0.00000 84
2.5.68-xfs 8 57.27 66.43% 1.070 184955.56 0.00463 0.00277 86
2.5.68-jfs 8 56.29 74.33% 1.284 28778.40 0.00420 0.00014 76
2.5.68-ext2 8 30.83 30.28% 2.473 21372.39 0.05684 0.00000 102
2.5.68-reiserfs 8 23.36 93.89% 3.360 101198.27 0.04807 0.00567 25
2.5.68-ext3 8 5.50 9.74% 13.646 125108.22 0.07095 0.05245 56
2.5.68-xfs 16 56.93 77.02% 2.100 214573.84 0.00839 0.00525 74
2.5.68-jfs 16 55.96 73.33% 2.602 31034.57 0.01793 0.00019 76
2.5.68-ext2 16 29.02 30.14% 4.886 36841.82 0.08054 0.00024 96
2.5.68-reiserfs 16 23.33 88.23% 6.326 96586.62 0.07553 0.00749 26
2.5.68-ext3 16 4.12 8.42% 33.119 213780.35 0.10290 0.06871 49
2.5.68-xfs 32 56.89 81.36% 4.088 225121.52 0.01722 0.01048 70
2.5.68-jfs 32 54.70 74.16% 4.917 55814.72 0.09756 0.00267 74
2.5.68-ext2 32 26.93 32.35% 9.834 76337.91 0.10024 0.03682 83
2.5.68-reiserfs 32 24.11 83.09% 11.613 53315.82 0.12221 0.02088 29
2.5.68-ext3 32 3.34 8.31% 79.577 483478.92 0.22878 0.09604 40
2.5.68-xfs 64 56.38 83.54% 8.119 227863.40 0.04755 0.02093 67
2.5.68-jfs 64 54.27 71.16% 9.572 88016.43 0.14295 0.00853 76
2.5.68-ext2 64 25.72 33.33% 19.158 134891.94 0.14043 0.07386 77
2.5.68-reiserfs 64 23.79 86.49% 21.591 105239.71 0.14672 0.09103 28
2.5.68-ext3 64 3.23 8.59% 151.588 991301.01 0.37602 0.11568 38
2.5.68-xfs 128 56.16 83.06% 15.864 237460.85 0.10334 0.04211 68
2.5.68-ext2 128 25.85 34.97% 35.961 266123.63 0.22740 0.09542 74
2.5.68-reiserfs 128 22.77 99.48% 45.575 194489.58 0.32768 0.12025 23
2.5.68-jfs 128 17.41 28.01% 50.678 1076474.44 0.22488 0.04926 62
2.5.68-ext3 128 3.19 9.04% 305.840 1742407.24 0.83918 0.23003 35
2.5.68-xfs 256 55.50 87.26% 29.319 317798.93 0.16642 0.08764 64
2.5.68-ext2 256 29.80 43.31% 60.387 463540.28 0.43515 0.12388 69
2.5.68-reiserfs 256 22.26 97.25% 85.895 338743.76 0.54208 0.18530 23
2.5.68-jfs 256 8.19 16.30% 227.946 2463059.30 0.51717 0.08673 50
2.5.68-ext3 256 3.12 13.00% 638.742 3668033.64 1.73178 0.65488 24
Random Writes
Num Avg Maximum Lat% Lat% CPU
Kernel Thr Rate (CPU%) Latency Latency >2s >10s Eff
------------------ --- ------------------------------------------------------------
2.5.68-xfs 1 3.84 3.61% 0.077 0.91 0.00000 0.00000 106
2.5.68-jfs 1 3.83 2.95% 0.059 0.66 0.00000 0.00000 130
2.5.68-ext2 1 2.86 2.73% 1.059 60.94 0.00000 0.00000 105
2.5.68-reiserfs 1 2.40 2.56% 1.857 51.38 0.00000 0.00000 94
2.5.68-ext3 1 2.16 2.23% 2.448 72.22 0.00000 0.00000 97
2.5.68-ext2 8 3.73 4.39% 1.176 81.25 0.00000 0.00000 85
2.5.68-jfs 8 3.71 5.86% 0.156 49.80 0.00000 0.00000 63
2.5.68-reiserfs 8 3.58 4.76% 2.250 78.78 0.00000 0.00000 75
2.5.68-xfs 8 3.16 5.44% 0.270 372.90 0.00000 0.00000 58
2.5.68-ext3 8 3.11 3.24% 4.549 115.77 0.00000 0.00000 96
2.5.68-ext2 16 3.69 4.21% 1.872 189.26 0.00000 0.00000 88
2.5.68-jfs 16 3.62 5.66% 0.213 156.60 0.00000 0.00000 64
2.5.68-xfs 16 3.62 6.05% 0.413 859.55 0.00000 0.00000 60
2.5.68-reiserfs 16 3.58 4.03% 3.920 1494.76 0.00000 0.00000 89
2.5.68-ext3 16 3.29 3.33% 6.283 439.97 0.00000 0.00000 99
2.5.68-ext2 32 3.71 4.89% 2.102 352.52 0.00000 0.00000 76
2.5.68-reiserfs 32 3.53 4.24% 7.106 2083.97 0.00000 0.00000 83
2.5.68-xfs 32 3.46 6.14% 0.181 38.54 0.00000 0.00000 56
2.5.68-jfs 32 3.43 5.59% 0.218 281.29 0.00000 0.00000 61
2.5.68-ext3 32 3.21 3.73% 7.689 1232.17 0.00000 0.00000 86
2.5.68-ext2 64 3.71 5.68% 2.266 701.86 0.00000 0.00000 65
2.5.68-reiserfs 64 3.64 5.95% 6.403 1621.61 0.00000 0.00000 61
2.5.68-xfs 64 3.64 6.41% 0.344 621.60 0.00000 0.00000 57
2.5.68-jfs 64 3.40 5.67% 0.154 12.18 0.00000 0.00000 60
2.5.68-ext3 64 3.07 4.89% 8.641 1027.54 0.00000 0.00000 63
2.5.68-ext2 128 3.79 6.87% 1.343 1042.66 0.00000 0.00000 55
2.5.68-xfs 128 3.72 6.09% 1.019 1391.50 0.00000 0.00000 61
2.5.68-reiserfs 128 3.49 6.72% 2.565 625.12 0.00000 0.00000 52
2.5.68-jfs 128 3.35 5.45% 0.163 38.73 0.00000 0.00000 62
2.5.68-ext3 128 3.24 6.10% 12.496 991.29 0.00000 0.00000 53
2.5.68-ext2 256 3.79 6.70% 0.304 79.07 0.00000 0.00000 57
2.5.68-xfs 256 3.44 6.05% 1.238 4153.45 0.05208 0.00000 57
2.5.68-ext3 256 3.37 8.68% 27.360 880.31 0.00000 0.00000 39
2.5.68-jfs 256 3.32 5.87% 0.194 57.83 0.00000 0.00000 57
2.5.68-reiserfs 256 3.13 23.49% 298.041 9474.22 6.84895 0.00000 13
Several of these are in the realm of stress tests. It's encouraging that
2.5.68 completed all tests on these 5 popular filesystems.
--
Randy Hron
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [benchmarks] various filesystems on 2.5.68
2003-04-24 12:47 [benchmarks] various filesystems on 2.5.68 rwhron
@ 2003-04-28 12:53 ` Hans Reiser
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Hans Reiser @ 2003-04-28 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rwhron; +Cc: linux-kernel
rwhron@earthlink.net wrote:
>mount -t reiserfs -o defaults,noatime /dev/sdc1 /fs1
>
You should benchmark us with notail option if you want it to be fair
compared to less space conserving filesystems. This has a substantial
performance impact, and since you don't measure space usage in these
benchmarks....
> ---------------- Sequential ----------
> ----- 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?
--
Hans
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20030424124728.GA1477@rushmore.suse.lists.linux.kernel>]
* Re: [benchmarks] various filesystems on 2.5.68
[not found] <20030424124728.GA1477@rushmore.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
@ 2003-04-24 13:31 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2003-04-24 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rwhron; +Cc: linux-kernel, lord
rwhron@earthlink.net writes:
> mount options
> mount -t ext2 -o defaults,noatime /dev/sdc1 /fs1
> mount -t ext3 -o defaults,noatime,data=writeback /dev/sdc1 /fs1
> mount -t reiserfs -o defaults,noatime /dev/sdc1 /fs1
> mount -t jfs -o defaults,noatime /dev/sdc1 /fs1
> mount -t xfs -o logbufs=8,logbsize=32768,noatime /dev/sdc1 /fs1
>
> mkfs command
> mke2fs -q /dev/sdc1
> mke2fs -q -j -J size=400 /dev/sdc1
> yes "y" | mkreiserfs /dev/sdc1 >/tmp/mkr.out 2>&1
> jfs_mkfs -q /dev/sdc1
> mkfs.xfs -l size=32768b -f /dev/sdc1
>
> Very recent version of xfsprogs/jfsutils/reiserfsprogs/e2fsprogs.
>
> XFS mount/mkfs options came from the XFS FAQ and are very desireable
> for these tests based on an earlier run without them. If anyone
It's my experience too that XFS often performs badly with the default
mkfs/mount options, especially for metadata intensive workloads. The
drawback is that it eats memory. I've been thinking about making it
set the bigger mount option by default based on the available physical
memory; this would probably help a lot of users.
iirc one drawback is that it eats from the vmalloc area which is only 64MB
by default on 32bit. But still should not be that big an issue. On 64bit
it's not an issue at all of course.
Of course the log size cannot be changed this way, but perhaps the default
in mkfs is just too small for today's disk sizes?
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [benchmarks] various filesystems on 2.5.68
@ 2003-04-28 21:41 rwhron
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: rwhron @ 2003-04-28 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: reiser; +Cc: linux-kernel
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-04-28 21:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-04-24 12:47 [benchmarks] various filesystems on 2.5.68 rwhron
2003-04-28 12:53 ` Hans Reiser
[not found] <20030424124728.GA1477@rushmore.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2003-04-24 13:31 ` Andi Kleen
2003-04-28 21:41 rwhron
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).