[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: file systems



In <201105021649.01038.bss@iguanasuicide.net>, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>I've used OpenSTV, and treated each graph as a preferential vote.
>
>This is only one way to aggregate the data on the graphs, and it is
>certainly  flawed, but it can be reasonably be used for ranking the file
>systems.  I think I'll extend this technique across all the benchmark
>graphs in that area and report back on that.

Graphs from <http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-
rc5/2.6.35-rc5.html>.  75 "votes", attached.  Rankings:

1. jfs
2. xfs-nobarrier
3. ext4
3. ext4-nobarrier
(tie)
5. xfs
6. ext3
7. ext3-barrier
8. btrfs-nocow
9. btrfs

Excluding the variants which as unsafe because they do not use barriers:
1. jfs
2. ext4
3. xfs
4. ext3-barrier
5. btrfs-nocow
6. btrfs

I'm slightly surprised by the results.  It's possible it was slightly weighted 
toward JFS because of the "%CPU" and "Ops/%CPU" metrics, which I don't think 
matter too much.

I'd love to see data for 2.6.32 (Squeeze) and 2.6.38 (Wheezy/Sid).
-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                   ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net                   ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy         `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/                    \_/
9 1
1 3 4 8 9 7 6 5 1 2 0
1 2 1 7 6 3 4 8 9 5 0
1 3 4 8 9 7 6 5 2 1 0
1 3 4 7 6 2 1 8 9 5 0
1 9 4 7 8 6 3 5 1 2 0
1 8 9 7 3 2 1 4 5 6 0
1 9 4 7 8 6 3 5 1 2 0
1 8 9 7 4 3 6 2 1 5 0
1 9 4 8 3 6 2 1 7 5 0
1 8 9 7 1 2 3 5 4 6 0
1 9 4 8 3 6 2 1 7 5 0
1 8 9 3 4 2 1 6 7 5 0
1 7 4 1 9 3 6 5 2 8 0
1 8 3 2 9 1 4 7 6 5 0
1 7 4 9 1 3 5 6 2 8 0
1 8 3 1 5 7 6 9 4 2 0
1 9 4 1 7 3 8 2 6 5 0
1 7 4 9 1 6 2 5 3 8 0
1 8 3 2 6 5 9 7 1 4 0
1 7 4 9 1 6 5 2 3 8 0
1 7 4 9 1 2 6 5 3 8 0
1 9 8 3 7 2 4 1 6 5 0
1 9 7 4 1 6 5 2 8 3 0
1 3 8 2 1 7 6 9 4 5 0
1 9 7 4 1 6 5 2 8 3 0
1 9 7 4 1 6 5 2 8 3 0
1 3 8 7 9 2 4 1 6 5 0
1 3 7 4 1 6 5 8 9 2 0
1 8 2 9 3 7 6 1 4 5 0
1 3 7 4 1 6 5 8 9 2 0
1 3 8 7 1 4 6 9 2 5 0
1 3 4 6 1 2 5 7 8 9 0
1 9 8 7 4 2 1 3 6 5 0
1 3 4 6 1 2 5 7 8 9 0
1 4 7 3 2 1 9 6 8 5 0
1 1 4 3 2 6 5 7 8 9 0
1 9 8 7 3 4 1 2 6 5 0
1 1 4 3 2 6 5 7 9 8 0
1 9 7 3 4 1 2 8 6 5 0
1 7 4 8 9 1 3 2 6 5 0
1 7 3 1 2 4 8 9 6 5 0
1 7 4 8 9 1 3 2 6 5 0
1 7 3 1 4 8 2 9 6 5 0
1 9 8 7 4 3 1 2 6 5 0
1 2 3 8 1 7 4 9 6 5 0
1 9 8 7 4 3 1 2 6 5 0
1 8 2 3 7 9 4 1 6 5 0
1 1 4 7 9 6 8 3 2 5 0
1 2 3 8 9 7 4 1 5 6 0
1 1 4 7 9 6 8 3 2 5 0
1 9 7 2 4 1 3 8 6 5 0
1 8 7 9 4 1 3 2 6 5 0
1 2 1 6 3 7 4 9 8 5 0
1 8 7 9 4 1 3 2 6 5 0
1 2 1 7 3 4 9 8 6 5 0
1 9 7 4 1 8 3 2 6 5 0
1 8 7 1 3 4 9 2 6 5 0
1 9 7 4 1 8 3 2 6 5 0
1 7 8 1 9 4 3 2 6 5 0
1 7 9 8 4 1 2 3 5 6 0
1 7 1 3 9 2 8 4 6 5 0
1 7 9 8 4 1 2 3 5 6 0
1 7 1 9 8 3 4 2 5 6 0
1 6 5 9 1 8 7 4 3 2 0
1 7 8 9 3 1 2 4 6 5 0
1 6 5 9 1 8 7 4 3 2 0
1 9 1 7 8 3 2 4 6 5 0
1 6 3 7 4 8 1 9 2 5 0
1 3 2 7 9 8 4 1 6 5 0
1 6 3 7 4 1 8 9 2 5 0
1 3 2 7 9 8 4 1 6 5 0
1 4 3 9 7 1 6 8 2 5 0
1 2 8 3 7 9 1 4 6 5 0
1 4 3 9 1 7 6 8 2 5 0
1 3 2 7 9 8 1 4 6 5 0
0
"ext3"
"ext3-barrier"
"ext4"
"ext4-nobarrier"
"btrfs"
"btrfs-nocow"
"jfs"
"xfs"
"xfs-nobarrier"
"Linux File Systems"

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: