Linux Filesystems Benchmarked 468
smatt-man writes "Over at Linux Gazette they ran some tests on popular Linux filesystems (ext2, ext3, jfs, reiserfs, xfs) and the results may surprise you."
"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.
duplicate on the same page (Score:2, Insightful)
Your graphs are unreadable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your graphs are unreadable (Score:5, Insightful)
>Use gif for images such as this.
No, use PNG.
If you're going to do it, do it right. Using GIFs is half-assed.
The tests don't show everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Speed means absolutely nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ext3 slowness (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I see this as a mild security benefit. If I delete something, I want it GONE. It's not as good as an idle-time thread that 11-pass nukes unallocated sectors at random, but it'll do for a start.
Defragmenting filesystem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slightly OT (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So why does RedHat/Fedora continue to push EXT3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Because for most uses, it's not the best option. So, if you're going to junk ext2 compatibility, why would you go to Reiser?
Re:Not a clear winner (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, it's mountable from FreeBSD. Reiser, XFS and JFS are not.
This may seem trivial until you have a dual boot system with FreeBSD and GNU/Linux and you want to transfer your /home dir or whatever.
-JemI'm rarely surprised... (Score:5, Insightful)
Have any of you ever been surprised?
Re:Bad graphs (Score:2, Insightful)
One word - inertia (Score:3, Insightful)
Ext3 is stable and there's a lot of useful available tools for it.
If, for the end user, the difference is marginal, why bother to make things more difficult than necessary for yourself?
Or maybe they've received unusually many bug reports for ReiserFS and thus concluded it's not stable enough for them to push it. After all, they want to be associated with (amongst other things) reliability.
Re:Slightly OT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not a clear winner (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you want a car that goes really, really fast, or do you want a car that gets good milage and has a really big back seat? ( You can always lie about having run out of gas).
Neither car is "best" until you define its intended use, and they both make lousy hammers. I canna change the laws of physics.
Different engineers have different ideas, different goals and different ways of going about things. Thus their output will vary in performance across a range of parameters. Pick the tool that compliments your primary need, then put up with the compromises that inherently entails. It's the best you can do, and yes, even FAT 16 may be the "winner" for certain functions.
KFG
Re:Defragmenting filesystem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Best Filesystem for Production System (Score:5, Insightful)
If your data is important, either turn off the cache on your IDE drive or buy a SCSI drive, which won't lie about fsync. This is a problem for both linux and BSD.
Later model IDE drivers and drives may be able to work properly with cache enabled, but not now. There are ongoing discussions on BOTH kernel hackers lists, BSD and Linux, about what to do, and no solution in sight.
Re:Not a clear winner (Score:5, Insightful)
And basically the results just reiterate the design imperatives of each filesystem(how unsurprising!)
- ext2 predates them all
- ext3 is a low-impact, let's reuse what we know as much as possible, kinda file system
- reiser's b-trees reflect it's "once we put the data in, how do we find it again" orientation
- XFS was at least at one point, designed for "Media" files(think renderfarms), aka LARGE files, much of the benchmarks it won were on such files, although its design was also influenced by large-scale server needs(a renderfarm is a large-scale server cluster right?)
- JFS was influenced by large-scale server needs(databases), but tampered by OS/2's needs, and other systems, resulting in a filesystem that's a bit more nimble than XFS, but less handy with huge files(normal, since databases try to use raw-io if necessary on huge files, unlike render clusters)
I think this demonstrates the implications of early design imperatives on long-term software trends. XFS and JFS were developed for other platforms and ported to linux, yet notice how they can't really change their strengths(good thing too!).
Anyone try the same benchmark on the 2.6 kernel just to contrast it? Wouldn't the new IO-system help to mitigate those weird ext2/ext3 slowdowns the article mentions, but doesn't explain?
Re:Your graphs are unreadable (Score:1, Insightful)
>Animation? Or do you not class this as a good feature?
In an image format? No, I don't.
JPEG JFIF doesn't support animation either, but we never hear people bringing that up?
If you want animation, use an animated format. There are many. If you believe GIF is the best animated format available to you, then use that for animation. That still doesn't make it any better as an image format, it just proves the point that it's a complete hack (and a bad one)
Re:The conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
I must have missed the memo
And the answer is: never.
Please give me a link to a
It would be neither legal nor ethical for Slashdot to mirror/cache content for articles posted on slashdot.
So you're saying that freecache and google are illegal?
Many site relies on banner ad revenue. Caching content would deprive those sites from the revenue generated by traffic. Plus there is the whole copyright issue.
If you don't cache the images, the banners will still show (as google does it).
More info needed for choosing wisely (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm rapidly approaching the point where I need support for file sizes greater than 2GB. Quite frankly, most of what I've found about file sizes and file systems is 2 to 4 years old... Everyone's too concerned with speed!
different benchmarks needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It'd be better under 2.6 (Score:1, Insightful)
jackass article (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow...I'm really surprised that I don't see anyone else around here bashing this "benchmarking" as totally ridiculous. Get it together, people! I mean, how does a group of folks that typically pride themselves on shredding the foolish articles that come by miss these beauties:
1) This guy goes out with the stated goal of evaluating real-world performance...so he starts by throwing out all real benchmarks. Of course, those tools are designed by experts to try to represent real-world performance, but who cares, right? Instead, our jackass throws together a bundle of random operations and times them. No thought is apparent in the choices of the operations, and no discussion is given as to why the choices were made.
2) The conclusions are drawn by simply adding the times of all the tests together. If you haven't figured out why this is dumb as a rock, let me explain: test #1 took 23-40 seconds, while test #2 took .02-.04 seconds. So, in his conclusion, test #1 was weighted 1000 times as heavily as test #2. I don't know about you all, but I for one don't feel that touching speed is 1000 times as important as finding speed.
3) Even if he had normalized all the times so that the mean in each test was the same and then added those, he would still be wrong...various tests ought to be weighed differently, because real-world usage doesn't do all of these things the same amount. That said, the weight given to the tests needs to be well thought out and planned, rather than arbitrarily assigned (accidentally) without paying any attention. Interestingly enough, this sort of purposeful weighing of tests is exactly the sort of thing done by the real benchmarking tools that this idiot threw away.
4) Perhaps this one isn't as important...but this guy can't make a graph to save his life. Half the bar graphs put time on X and the other half put time on Y. Graphs that obviously should be bar graphs are made into dot-line ones. The text is blurry and you can't tell the colors in the key.
Anyway, I still don't get why everybody around here seems to have missed all this...it was painfully obvious to me when I just took a cursory glance at it.
Re:Almost Full Article Text (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm surprised that XFS did so poorly here. I do know they had a bug one point in time, which may reflect such a score, however, I thought it had long been addressed. Worse, I thought I remembered reading that XFS used a btree to track file and directory names. Please correct as needed. If this is true, it would appear to be a bug rather than normal performance. Any XFS experts care to fill in the blanks here?
I should also offer than XFS's big claims are stability, reliability, big and huge file support, speed when accessing big and huge files, and excellent concurrent file access abilities, which is why SCSI is the preferred media for XFS. Basically, if you plan on managing big and huge files or medium to huge files with large amounts of concurrent activity via SCSI, then XFS should be one of your target FS.
Then, you have excellent snapshot, backup and recovery utilities as well as quota and realtime access support. All of which, make XFS an excellent journalled FS.
Re:What about HFS + (Score:3, Insightful)
Write support of HFS+ works under GNU/Linux.
Re:Since article has been ./ed.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you need "live" access to the files, then simply create a loopback ext2/3 file system (which can also be encrypted), which is stored in a single large file in the FAT partition. Mount it on a loopback device, and your other problems are moot.
Re:Best Filesystem for Production System (Score:3, Insightful)
The OS writes to the journal what it's going to do.
It calls fsync to make sure the journal is on the disk.
The disk says "oh yeah, it's there."
The file system then writes the actual data, and fsyncs that. The disk, again, tells it that it wrote the data out. The file system then marks that part of the journal as having been written.
However, the disk hasn't actually written out its cache yet. It lied to the OS / file system and said it had, but it hasn't, it's busy doing something else. Poof, the power goes out.
Now, the journal doesn't have our data, we've already cleared it out, and the file system, which is supposed to have been coherent because we fsynced it, is not, and it is now corrupted.
I have reproduced this behavior a dozen or more times on IDE based systems. The only way to stop it is to tell the drive to stop using it's write cache.
Now, SCSI drives don't lie about fsync. At least none of the ones I've tested have done that. so, when the file system asks the disk to fsync and reports back that it has fsynced, the data really is on the drive. And we can now roll forward the journal pointed and proceed with the knowledge our data is coherent on the drive.
You can prove this to yourself. Set up a server on IDE and another on SCSI. Install postgresql, running on a journaled file system like ext3, and then run the follow commands on each:
Setup:
pgbench -i -s 10
Test:
pgbench -c 100 -t 100000
Now, in the middle of the test on both machines, pull the plug.
When you restart the machines, the SCSI one will come right up, database coherent and no problem. the IDE one will fail, at least every so often, or as in my experience, nearly every time.
Re:They really should have benchmarked V4 not just (Score:2, Insightful)
With all due respect, as your website states:
and (on the download page):I would say benchmarks need to be performed with released products. It doesn't help most users if Vendor X claims his vaporware beats all competitors. Now, I know this isn't the case with ReiserFS here -- it isn't vaporware -- but it isn't production-ready either according to Namesys. You're just unfortunate in that this benchmark was performed just before the release of your next version which would have performed better.
On the other hand, any benchmarks published on the Web ought to be updated whenever a new version of a tested product is released -- add the results of the new version and keep the old one as well, for comparison purposes.