2012/6/2 Roger Leigh wrote: > These tests were all performed on current unstable using a core2 quad > core system with ext4 and swap on LVM on a 1 TiB MD RAID1 PV, and > Btrfs internally using RAID1 over 2 1TiB partitions.
Well, not fair for btrfs, but anyway, finally, some tests! Thank you for doing them. > 1) Checkout of several tags in a git repository > 2) Building a package (sysvinit) These are strange tests. We're not just talking about tmpfs, but about /tmp on tmpfs. Are people expected to use git in /tmp? Or building packages inside /tmp by default? I mean, it may be a good hack for you to mount tmpfs to /mnt/tmpfs and use it for your personal scripts, but why do you use _/tmp_ for that? > 3) Unpacking of a large zip file > 4) Unpacking of large uncompressed tarfile How large were these "large" files?: > unpack 1.2 GiB of data. Hm, it means, that there must be _at_least_ 2GB of RAM and 4GB of swap just for this test to work. Are you sure it's a good *default*? ;) > Without the overhead of uncompression, making it largely CPU bound, > tmpfs is the fastest by far. Hah! And this makes your test the artificial corner case. I mean, default users are not really expected to unpack zip and uncompressed tars to /tmp? (i.e. mc won't unpack them) And personally I haven't ever seen 1+GB zip archives (where did you got it from, just curious, or have you created it just for the test?). > So if you're doing a lot of I/O, tmpfs is unquestionably faster. You're right. But who does a lot of I/O in _/tmp_? Your tests show that if you wrote some scripts doing a lot of I/O it may be nice to make them working on a large tmpfs mounted to i.e. /mnt/tmpfs, but they don't explain why _/tmp_ must be mounted on tmpfs. -- Serge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOVenEqNCAL8ihiL0Vi9ryW6o3OS3eM=no0QEt+0OxR=1e1...@mail.gmail.com
