You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
Topic closed
#1 2006-01-09 12:29:20
- Moo-Crumpus
- Member
- From: Hessen / Germany
- Registered: 2003-12-01
- Posts: 1,487
Filesystem Benchmarks of January 2006
http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz
Surprisingly ReiserFS4 seems to be crud.
Frumpus ♥ addict
[mu'.krum.pus], [frum.pus]
Offline
#2 2006-01-09 12:38:38
- kozaki
- Member
- From: London >. < Paris
- Registered: 2005-06-13
- Posts: 671
- Website
Re: Filesystem Benchmarks of January 2006
Allready quoted in Benchmarking Filesystems Part || 
Seeded last month: Arch 50 gig, derivatives 1 gig
Desktop @3.3GHz 8 gig RAM, linux-ck
laptop #1 Atom 2 gig RAM, Arch linux stock i686 (6H w/ 6yrs old battery 
) #2: ARM Tegra K1, 4 gig RAM, ChrOS
Atom Z520 2 gig RAM, OMV (Debian 7) kernel 3.16 bpo on SDHC | PGP Key: 0xFF0157D9
Offline
#3 2006-01-09 12:42:54
- Moo-Crumpus
- Member
- From: Hessen / Germany
- Registered: 2003-12-01
- Posts: 1,487
Re: Filesystem Benchmarks of January 2006
Merde. Thanx, kozaki.
Frumpus ♥ addict
[mu'.krum.pus], [frum.pus]
Offline
#4 2006-01-09 12:46:36
- Gullible Jones
- Member
- Registered: 2004-12-29
- Posts: 4,863
Re: Filesystem Benchmarks of January 2006
Somebody posted this already. But yes, it's pretty amazing how crappy Reiser4 is.
Now, I'd like to know how NTFS, UFS2, and ZFS compare...
(What's interesting is that some of the filesystems' performance has increased since last time. Is that because of modifications to the actual filesystem, or better support in the kernel?)
Offline
#5 2006-01-09 17:06:22
- Snowman
- Developer/Forum Fellow
- From: Montreal, Canada
- Registered: 2004-08-20
- Posts: 5,212
Re: Filesystem Benchmarks of January 2006
Use the Benchmarking Filesystems Part || thread for discussion. Locking.
Offline
Pages: 1
Topic closed