I've done Squid benchmarks, which the benchmark software license prohibits publishing...But the short of it is that ReiserFS is still about 15% faster for Squid workloads than the ext[2|3] family. ext3 in writeback mode actually seems to weather the load better than ext2 for some reason though peak throughput is about the same (i.e. the Squid process doesn't become hopelessly overloaded as quickly, but the point at which it begins to degrade is roughly the same). Bruce Guenter wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:26:55PM +0100, Martin Eriksson wrote: > >>I was just wondering how Ext3 and Reiserfs compare. When I reinstalled my >>server (because of a stupid hacker) I took the opportunity to change to >>ReiserFS. And I have to say it's really much faster than Ext3. >> >>So what's some highlights on Ext3 vs. ReiserFS? I guess the Ext2 compability >>is one large factor for using Ext3, but otherwise? >> > > I ran some benchmarks recently to test performance of several Linux > filesystems under heavey synchronous load (ie a mail server). For this, > ext3 data=journal was nearly twice as fast as ReiserFS. > > See http://bruce-guenter.dyndns.org/benchmarking/ -- Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com> http://www.swelltech.com Web Caching Appliances and Support
