In <[🔎] 4DC27008.2080105@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >On 5/2/2011 5:54 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> 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. > >As I mentioned previously, the only relevant graph of each set is the >one at the top of each page, either MB/s or IOPS. Ops/sec is always the first graph. CPU% is always the second graph. MB/sec is always the third graph. Mail server simulation has a second MB/sec graph. Efficiency (Ops/CPU%) is always the last graph. >The other graphs are >useless for any kind of ranking, and in fact will likely produce >misleading rankings. >If your ranking program is looking at tall bars, >it will make an inverse ranking error WRT %CPU data, where the lower >bars are better. I converted the graphs to ballots manually, so I took into account that short bars where better on that graph. >%CPU isn't relevant anyway as any 4+ core server >shipped in the past 3 years has a huge excess of CPU/mem bandwidth in >relation to IO. Agreed. >If you rank strictly based on the first graph of each test result page >you'll see why I use the word "trounces". Based only on Ops/sec (first graph), the results are: 1. jfs 2. ext4-nobarrier 3. xfs-nobarrier 4. ext3 5. ext4 5. xfs (tie) 7. btrfs-nocow 8. ext3-barrier 9. btrfs Ballots used attached. -- 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 9 4 7 8 6 3 5 1 2 0 1 9 4 8 3 6 2 1 7 5 0 1 7 4 1 9 3 6 5 2 8 0 1 7 4 9 1 6 2 5 3 8 0 1 9 7 4 1 6 5 2 8 3 0 1 3 7 4 1 6 5 8 9 2 0 1 3 4 6 1 2 5 7 8 9 0 1 1 4 3 2 6 5 7 8 9 0 1 7 4 8 9 1 3 2 6 5 0 1 9 8 7 4 3 1 2 6 5 0 1 1 4 7 9 6 8 3 2 5 0 1 8 7 9 4 1 3 2 6 5 0 1 9 7 4 1 8 3 2 6 5 0 1 7 9 8 4 1 2 3 5 6 0 1 6 5 9 1 8 7 4 3 2 0 1 6 3 7 4 8 1 9 2 5 0 1 4 3 9 7 1 6 8 2 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.