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.