Hi, I have a SSD which is Intel x25-v, I use it to test the performance of different file systems. The results seems confusing to me. It is from postmark in which I set file number to 50,000 with each size from 9216 bytes to 15360 bytes EXT3 NILFS2 BTRFS EXT4 XFS REISERFS EXT2 PostMark(R) 146.67Kb/s 52.21Kb/s 90.59Kb/s 172.12Kb/s 60.39Kb/s 146.67Kb/s 83.25Kb/s PostMark(W) 28.09Mb/s 10Mb/s 17.35Mb/s 31.04Mb/s 11.56Mb/s 28.09Mb/s 15.94Mb/s >From the results, the throughput both for R/W of NILFS2 is much smaller than EXT3. As I noticed that the performance of NILFS2 for SSD is much better than other file systems from the web site. What's the matter with my own test result? My kernel is 2.6.32, and I use default way to format NILFS2, nothing special is done. So, my questions are: 1. Are there any special parameters that I need to configure when I mount/format my SSD? 2. Is the performance much different from different kind of SSD? 3. As I know, NILFS2 is a kind of Log-file system, which means it always makes the random writes sequentially and tries to avoid the cost of overwrite for SSD. Does it need to overwrite its meta data? Since I think NILFS2 should always make a mapping table, how about when the mapping table need to be updated? 4. What's special has done to optimize the performance of SSD? I guess Log-file systems might have better performance than fast file systems such as EXT2/3, but at least right now the results shows that I was wrong. Thanks, Yuehai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
