asks: "I've been doing a little experiement to compare Ext2, ReiserFS,
and SGI XFS. The experiment (LFS Sprite benchmark for small
files) involves tight loops of creating 10,000 1K files spread
equally among 100 directories, reading them back in order, and
deleting them. On a 1GHz processor with plenty of RAM running Linux 2.4.2, with
matching versions of file systems in default configurations
(no debugging and no internal checks). In our tests, EXT2 turned out to be faster than both ReiserFS and XFS. We had been led to believe by other published results that XFS would be much faster than Ext2, and ReiserFS would run just about
as fast. Have any slashdot readers had experienced similar results
with these filesystems? Or have we simply overlooked a major factor
in our tests?"
"Here are the results (create, read, delete) in seconds:
- Ext2 (0.45, 0.093, 0.13)
- ReiserFS (2.5, 0.45, 0.94)
- XFS (6.4, 0.15, 7.1)
Note that ReiserFS (v3.6.25) and XFS (v1.0) are vastly slower than
Ext2 (v0.5b) in an identical configuration.
Since we can obtain these numbers consistently, we are wondering
why they deviate from various published results. We have ruled
out cache warm-up and disk-zone effects. All three file systems
were set up from scratch from a 6 GB disk partition."