From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 07:42:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 07:42:00 -0400 Received: from m3d.uib.es ([130.206.132.6]:13496 "EHLO m3d.uib.es") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 07:41:55 -0400 From: "Ricardo Galli" To: Subject: Reiserfs, Mongo and CPU question Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:41:01 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hans and reiserfs developers, the same student of my university (http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2001-18/0654.html) was carrying up the mongo benchmarks against reiser, xfs, jfs and ext2 for different base sizes. For example, for the base size of 10.000 (the average of a clean distribution is about 16.000 bytes) ReiserFS is even slower than ext2. I've realised the bottleneck may be the CPU, a Cyrix MII 233MHz. FSYS=ext2 FSYS=reiserfs (time in sec.) Create 32.72 / 56.90 = 0.58 Fragm. 1.49 / 2.22 = 0.67 Copy 98.53 / 131.81 = 0.75 Fragm. 1.49 / 2.26 = 0.66 Slinks 4.82 / 5.08 = 0.95 Read 187.90 / 299.23 = 0.63 Stats 1.01 / 0.99 = 1.02 Rename 2.40 / 2.23 = 1.08 Delete 6.55 / 4.82 = 1.36 Can you confirm it? We are going to do the same benchmarks on a PIII if you think it's due to the cpu. I don't post the URL of the benchmarks to the list because last time we were slashdotted ;-) and we aren't convinced they are valueable, but I can send it to you directly if you are interested. Regards, -- ricardo galli