Hi, first off I want to say I am not posting this to say one FS is better than the other, just something I ran into thought there may be an issue. First off I was setting up and rsync server to store medical databases. There fairly large and I use encrypted file containers(Truecrypt). I started off with an ext4 FS in the container and all was well but I wanted something with some compression so I tried the reiser4 FS and got really good compression. I set it up and thought all was good. The next day I noticed the rsync had not completed and was actually still running just really slow. So I stopped it and watched it run and noticed the CPU was maxed out so I thought well there is the problem just too much CPU time with encryption and compression. After a couple of days I just wanted to make a test. I did some test with ext4, reiser4, and btrfs with and without being encrypted, and did some simple time tests and found that the sum operation was much slower when it was in an encrypted container than when it was not. My test set up was two separate hard drives on an 8 CPU machine with 16GB of ram. I did just a simple copy and then sum of a 23GB file. The target drive was an 80GB drive and I just used one partition and formatted them. With the reiser4 fs I used the option -o create=ccreg40,compress=gzip1 with the btrfs I used the mount options -o compress (which did not compress the file at all) and -o compress-force here is a table I made I hope it stays formatted -o compress -o compress-force ext4 reiser4.gzip Btrfs cp 7m51.406s 9m25.903s 7m6.808s 7m47.110s 0m1.103s 0m0.098s 0m0.724s 0m0.797s 1m47.141s 0m35.391s 0m52.885s 0m54.499s sum 5m50.562s 4m52.599s 5m22.873s 5m2.472s 1m3.782s 1m13.078s 1m17.149s 1m26.324s 0m32.918s 2m48.619s 0m28.767s 1m5.546s Truecrypt cp 7m41.669s 7m44.611s 7m21.847s 0m0.573s 0m0.067s 0m0.735s 0m47.210s 0m38.285s 0m55.225s sum 5m21.034s 41m38.636s 8m13.561s 1m19.902s 1m10.509s 1m18.920s 0m27.289s 2m21.986s 1m9.792s I did not test the btrfs, mount -o compress in the encryption because it did not compress the file hardly at all 1.04:1 but the reiser4 did compress the best. I did expect some slow down and that is not problem for the trade off of compression but you can see it took nearly 10x longer with encryption. The reiser4 compressed the file 7.62:1 and btrfs was 7.21:1. This may be just the way it is but I didn't know if it was anything anyone would be interested in. Thanks Jarrid Graham -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
