Adrian Ulrich schrieb am 2006-08-01: > > suspect, particularly with 7200/min (s)ATA crap. > > Quoting myself (again): > >> A quick'n'dirty ZFS-vs-UFS-vs-Reiser3-vs-Reiser4-vs-Ext3 'benchmark' > > Yeah, the test ran on a single SATA-Harddisk (quick'n'dirty). > I'm so sorry but i don't have access to a $$$ Raid-System at home. I'm not asking for you to perform testing on a $$$$ RAID system with SCSI or SAS, but I consider the obtained data (I am focussing on transactions per unit of time) highly suspicious, and suspect write caches might have contributed their share - I haven't seen a drive that shipped with write cache disabled in the past years. > > sdparm --clear=WCE /dev/sda # please. > > How about using /dev/emcpower* for the next benchmark? No, it is valid to run the test on commodity hardware, but if you (or the benchmark rather) is claiming "transactions", I tend to think "ACID", and I highly doubt any 200 GB SATA drive manages 3000 synchronous writes per second without causing either serious fragmentation or background block moving. This is a figure I'd expect for synchronous random access to RAM disks that have no seek and rotational latencies (and research for hybrid disks w/ flash or other nonvolatile fast random access media to cache actual rotating magnetic plattern access is going on elsewhere). I didn't mean to say your particular drive were crap, but 200GB SATA drives are low end, like it or not -- still, I have one in my home computer because these Samsung SP2004C are so nicely quiet. > I mighty be able to re-run it in a few weeks if people are interested > and if i receive constructive suggestions (= Postmark parameters, > mkfs options, etc..) I don't know Postmark, I did suggest to turn the write cache off. If your systems uses hdparm -W0 /dev/sda instead, go ahead. But you're right to collect and evaluate suggestions first if you don't want to run a new benchmark every day :) -- Matthias Andree - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: Avi Kivity <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- References:
- Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: "Horst H. von Brand" <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: Adrian Ulrich <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: "Nate Diller" <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: David Lang <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: "Nate Diller" <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: David Lang <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: "Nate Diller" <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>
- Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- From: Adrian Ulrich <[email protected]>
- Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 30/30] VFS: Destroy the dentries contributed by a superblock on unmounting [try #11]
- Next by Date: [take2 4/4] kevent: poll/select() notifications. Timer notifications.
- Previous by thread: Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- Next by thread: Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
- Index(es):