Just grabbed the last set of links from that thread regarding benchmarking:
"You can find benchs reiserfs vs. ext3 on
http://www.namesys.com/benchmarks/benchmark-results.html
I did also similar benchs:
http://www.linux-france.org/article/sys/ext3fs/Benchmarks/benchmark-mongo-2.txt
and
http://www.linux-france.org/article/sys/ext3fs/Benchmarks/index.html
(this one is in French)
also, http://bruce-guenter.dyndns.org/benchmarking/
http://www.mandrakeforum.com/print.php?sid=1212&lang=en"
Apparently, for some synchronous IO ops, ext3 can actually be faster than
ext2, from Stephen Tweedie:
"> I see in your benchmark that EXT3 is actually performing better than EXT2.
> How is that possible? Because as far as I know EXT3 is just EXT2 +
> journalling which means more work for the HD.
It depends very much on the workload. ext3 can often avoid seeks that
ext2 has to do, because it can flush data out sequentially to the
journal rather than having to seek to all the bitmap and inode blocks
when writing out a change to disk. This is especially noticeable with
some synchronised-IO benchmarks, where ext2 has to seek all over the
disk for every IO request, whereas ext3 can just append a bit more to
the journal.
"
Just FYI I guess.
Matthew
--Matthew Sackman Nottingham England
BOFH Excuse Board: Incorrectly configured static routes on the corerouters. -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri 18 Jan 2002 - 21:21:37 GMT