Reiser |
Reiser -o notail |
Ext2 |
Comments |
10 ReiserFS Breakdown in read performance between
1x1 and 10x1 (resp. 1x10)! Why that big difference? |
10 ReiserFS notail Breakdown in read performance between
1x1 and 10x1 (resp. 1x10)! Why that big difference? |
10 Ext2 Clearly seen the overhead of maintaining many files
per directory. Bad stating performance. |
Overall best case for Reiser: many small files per directory. |
100 ReiserFS |
100 ReiserFS notail |
100 Ext2 |
This is a case where the directory structure shows no relevance. |
1000 ReiserFS |
1000 ReiserFS notail Write performance becomes
bad after very good start and is even significantly worse than for 10000 directories. |
1000 Ext2 It looks like that between 100 and 1000 entries can be cached: 100x10
und 10x100 are slightly better for writing and random read and worse for recursive walkings because the directory
commands become expensive. |
Directory structure shows up for Ext2.
|
10000 ReiserFS The 1x10000 and
10000x1 are faster for read, but slower for random read. |
10000 ReiserFS notail Seems, that the extreme
1x10000 and 10000x1 are better than the moderate structures. |
10000 Ext2 Again, the moderate structures are in favour
for writing and random read. 1x10000 and also 10000x1 are better for recursive operations. |
Directory structure shows up for Ext2 and slightly less for Reiser. |