Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:44:32 -0400 From: Jason Andresen <jandrese@mitre.org> To: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>, ccf@master.ndi.net, gordont@bluemtn.net, jkh@osd.bsdi.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: technical comparison Message-ID: <3B0A9770.AC2450DD@mitre.org> References: <200105220411.f4M4BDX101825@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <3B0A8DD5.9A38449B@mitre.org> <3B0A8F23.F47DCCEB@mitre.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jason Andresen wrote:
>
> Jason Andresen wrote:
>
> Oops, I fubbed up the linux at 60000 files test, I'm rerunning it now,
> but it will take a while to finish.
>
> > Results:
> > ufs+softupdates is a little slower than ext2fs+wc for low numbers of
> > files, but scales better. I wish I had a Reiserfs partition to
> > test with.
The test is done:
Linux 2.2.16 with ext2fs and write caching
10000 transactions, 60000 simultanious files:
Time:
2084 seconds total
702 seconds of transactions (14 per second)
Files:
65065 created (31 per second)
Creation alone: 60000 files (48 per second)
Mixed with transactions: 5065 files (7 per second)
5078 read (7 per second)
4921 appended (7 per second)
65065 deleted (31 per second)
Deletion alone: 60130 files (395 per second)
Mixed with transactions: 4935 files (7 per second)
Data:
26.01 megabytes read (12.48 kilobytes per second)
325.12 megabytes written (156.01 kilobytes per second)
I don't suppose anybody has a FreeBSD and Linux box dual booting
(or identically speced) with ReiserFS anywhere? I'm quite
curious how much faster ReiserFS is in these tests.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B0A9770.AC2450DD>