On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:25:55 +0300 (MET DST) > Szabolcs Szakacsits <szaka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > > > >> Some impressive benchmark results on SSD are shown in [3], > > > > > > > >heh. It wipes the floor with everything, including btrfs. > > > > It seems the benchmark was done over half year ago. It's questionable how > > relevant today the performance comparison is with actively developed file > > systems ... > > > > > >But a log-based fs will do that, initially. What will the performace > > > >look like after a month or two's usage? > > > > > > I'm using NILFS2 for my home directory for serveral months, but so far > > > I don't feel notable performance degradation. > > > > I ran compilebench on kernel 2.6.26 with freshly formatted volumes. > > The behavior of NILFS2 was interesting. > > > > Its peformance rapidly degrades to the lowest ever measured level > > (< 1 MB/s) but after a while it recovers and gives consistent numbers. > > However it's still very far from the current unstable btrfs performance. > > The results are reproducible. > > > > MB/s Runtime (s) > > ----- ----------- > > btrfs unstable 17.09 572 > > ext3 13.24 877 > > btrfs 0.16 12.33 793 > > nilfs2 2nd+ runs 11.29 674 > > ntfs-3g 8.55 865 > > reiserfs 8.38 966 > > nilfs2 1st run 4.95 3800 > > xfs 1.88 3901 > > err, what the heck happened to xfs? Is this usual? vmstat typically shows that xfs does ... "nothing". It uses no CPU time and doesn't wait for I/O either. Szaka -- NTFS-3G: http://ntfs-3g.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
