On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 11:48 +0100, James Tunnicliffe wrote: > On 17 August 2011 08:55, Tixy <t...@clara.net> wrote: > > For untaring kernel source on one of my good performance > > SD cards on a Beagleboard-xM takes: > > > > m s > > ext4 3:30 > > ext3 8:30 > > ext2 5:00 > > btrfs 13:40 > > nilfs 10:40 > > logfs 10:00 > > > > this is using default mount options for file system but with noatime. > > > > These timings also bear out preliminary results from my simulation code. > > Which I'm glad of :-) > > This is odd. When I performed tests btrfs and ext4 were both about the > same speed for copying a mixture of large and small files to.
Mystery solved... I didn't have btrfs-tools (nor nilfs nor logfs) installed. My test script didn't notice that mkfs failed because I was piping the output through tee, (which, being the end of the pipeline, always gave a success result). This all resulted in my tests being re-run on the last file system (ext2) which is a interesting result in itself as it shows a lot worse performance compared to a fresh partition. (This is the sort of thing we expected and is on the list of things to investigate further.) My new results for the untar on a Beagleboard-xM... ext4 161s ext3 547s ext2 256s btrfs 139s nilfs 157s I couldn't test logfs because, whilst mkfs worked, the mount command (or the kernel?) doesn't seem to support it. I also tested the different btrfs mount options (ssd, nossd and ssd_spread). They don't show much difference with the untar case. -- Tixy _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
