ext3 again takes the slowest performing title overall as
expected...in fact it appears not much as changed fs vs fs wise
since Bruce Guenter's tests.
I agree but the values are more "acceptable" in comparision with
others filesystems. On Bruce tests it shows a very bad performance
for reading.
Yes, reads are vastly improved at the cost of write performance.
Weird. XFS has like the best read response times too. XFS is looking
very good at the moment with just about the fastest performance in
everything. What io-scheduler is default on Centos 5? I assume you
prefer read performance to write performance. After all, it is for
maildir use. Have you tuned the box for read performance?
Initially this box is not tuned for read because I would to compare the
results of tests on default configuration with other configurations.
The default io-scheduler on CentOS 5 is CFQ.
Ah, thank you for doing all that testing.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
