There is obviously something missing in this picture, or reiserfs would
be as fast as ext2 for random access and much faster for access in
sequential order by filename spelling.
(a "random" hash should not be significantly better than a hash that
preserves order, because the randomness in the hash is of course not the
same random order in wich the files are accessed. The only exception is
that hashes that preserve order may have a harder time using the full
hash-space evenly)
So, did anyone investigate why ext2 is faster than reiserfs in theese
cases, or try benchmarking ext2 with one of the reiserfs-hashes (eg r5)?
We know from earlier benchmarks on reiserfs (tea vs r5 tests, and r5 vs
maildir-hash) that a hash that preserves order can give a magnitude of
order performance improvement in certain cases.
-- Ragnar Kjørstad Big Storage - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/