Re: [Jfs-discussion] Filesystem performance with Linux 2.4 vs. 2.6

[Michael M?l. <mue...@ni...>]

On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 05:53:33PM -0500, Sonny Rao <so...@bu...> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 11:40:21AM +0100, Michael M?ller wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I read an article in the German 'Linux Magazin' 11/04 about a
> > comparision of the different FS. They tested Ext2, Ext3, JFS, XFS,
> > ReiserFS, Reiser4 and Veritas. Detailed results can be found on
> > http://www.linux-magazin.de/Service/Listings/2004/11/fs_bench.

The link only contains test results; no German texts.

> My guess is that they didn't set the readahead high enough for
> whatever type of device they were testing on 2.6 (It looks like a Raid
> array, since on 2.4 it gets about 100MB/sec, which I don't think very
> many single disks can do).  The readahead implementation on 2.6 is
> certainly different from the one on 2.4.  IO performance on 2.6 is
> much, much better across the board.
> 
> My German isn't great, so I'm not going to try and read the article,
> but I'd also like to know what kind of array they are using for this
> test.  Before we can make any conclusions, we should know what the
> hardware is capable of doing.

The hardware:

Pentium 4, 2.8GHz, 512MB, 12 SATA-HDs in a RAID, overall capacity 2TB,
test partition 200GB

For the 2.4 tests they used SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8, kernel
2.4.21-138-smp, for 2.6 SuSE Linux 9.1, 2.6.7-mm4 with patches for
Reiser 4.

Regards

Michael