On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 06:42:09PM -0500, Bob Tanner wrote: > Quoting Jon Erickson (jon.erickson at neicoltech.org): > > >The testing I have done, shows ext2 faster the Reiserfs, and on a cache fs, I > > >don't think journaling is necessary or needed (IMHO). > > > > That's interesting to hear. I've read on a couple web sites > > (http://www.swelltech.com/pengies/joe/benchmarks.html is one of them) > > that had benchmarked ext2 and Reiserfs cache partitions and they saw > > significant performance increases with Reiserfs. I'd be interested in > > seeing your results if you have them documented. > > I tried this on a fs where I do all my compiles. This is under Java using both > make and ant, so I don't know if .java and .class files constitute "small" > files. > > I got the raw data, let me see of I can make something with gnuplot. What? Your benchmarked filesystems by compiling java sources? What has java compilation to do with filesystem access? Have you did a vmstat to see how much time is spent in i/o and how much time actually compiling? Your "benchmark" is totally flawed. florin -- "If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is." 41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20010927/ffdeb60b/attachment.pgp