From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030372AbWGaXVb (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:21:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030373AbWGaXVb (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:21:31 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.186]:62300 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030372AbWGaXVa (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:21:30 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=IMTTPxZl2VyUxhl9chCDSznyPU3TCWKJl+kuO+8JKBZ3H8ZpjSUBlNjOoEq0RWcVQSib0uAmBLIjevZV3E3Z7tHa3Xe70UUHMKzskeiDg4pGVd5V0xSNKoqR0ff9sdIKBeX9cjsGkVaaTsAdKYqs05uPUAfIPVppMkOEpaybhsE= Message-ID: <5c49b0ed0607311621i54f1c46fh9137f8955c9ea4be@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:21:28 -0700 From: "Nate Diller" To: "Matthias Andree" Subject: Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion] Cc: "Adrian Ulrich" , "Horst H. von Brand" , ipso@snappymail.ca, reiser@namesys.com, lkml@lpbproductions.com, jeff@garzik.org, tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <44CE7C31.5090402@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060731175958.1626513b.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> <200607311918.k6VJIqTN011066@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> <20060731225734.ecf5eb4d.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> <44CE7C31.5090402@gmx.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/31/06, Matthias Andree 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