Re: Reiser vs EXT3

[David Lang]

One thing that concerns me is the warning to only use a filesystem created
in a certin way for the benchmark, don't use a tar of an ext2/3 filesystem
as that will kill performance.

they say taht there will be a tool to fix this in 4.1, but this makes me
treat the benchmark as a 'best possible' test case and expect the
real-world performance to be considerably worse (how much worse who knows,
I haven't seen anyone try to do worst-case performance tests on it)

David Lang

 On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Dieter [iso-8859-15] Nützel wrote:

> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:52:07 +0100
> From: "Dieter [iso-8859-15] Nützel" <[e-mail]>
> To: Jeff Garzik <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Hans Reiser <[e-mail]>,
>      Linux Kernel <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Reiser vs EXT3
>
> Am Donnerstag, 31. Oktober 2002 22:05 schrieb Jeff Garzik:
> > Hans Reiser wrote:
> >
> > > If you want to talk about 2.6 then you should talk about reiser4 not
> > > reiserfs v3, and reiser4 is 7.6 times the write performance of ext3
> > > for 30 copies of the linux kernel source code using modern IDE drives
> > > and modern processors on a dual-CPU box, so I don't think any amount
> > > of improved scalability will make ext3 competitive with reiser4 for
> > > performance usages.
> >
> > What is the read performance like?
>
> From his mentioned paper http://www.namesys.com/v4/fast_reiser4.html, it is
> more then doubled compared to ext3 and ReiserFS v3.
>
> To be fair he should explain if it was compared to the latest ext3 (htree)
> stuff or not, yet.
>
> It looks truly impressive.
>
> Regards,
>         Dieter
>
> --
> Dieter Nützel
> Graduate Student, Computer Science
>
> University of Hamburg
> Department of Computer Science
> @home: Dieter.Nuetzel at hamburg.de (replace at with @)
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>