You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Brandon Ehle <az...@yahoo.com> on 2003/11/19 23:40:50 UTC
Subversion on various Linux file systems performance test
Here is the results of my Subversion benchmark running checkout with the
working copy and repository located on various file systems.
The major points that I've gleamed from this test.
* Linux 2.6 will provide a fast host for Subversion repositories when
its ready.
* JFS, FAT32, & ReiserFS make poor working copy hosts (client side).
* All of the file systems performed well for hosting the repository
(server side).
* The version of ReiserFS used in this test is 3.6. I would like to
repeat this test with Reiser4 when it starts merging into the kernel.
http://subversion.kicks-ass.org/svn-fs-bench/
If you reply to this message, please don't post across both mailing lists!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Subversion on various Linux file systems performance test
Posted by Marc Haisenko <ha...@webport.de>.
On Friday 21 November 2003 15:38, Brian Denny wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 02:36:50PM -0800, Brandon Ehle wrote:
> > There are lots of filesystems, I just tried to include the default ones.
> > I just didn't know that any distros had ReiserFS in the default kernel.
>
> I am pretty sure that the last time I installed SuSE, it not only
> included ReiserFS, but gave the impression (in the installer) that
> it was a good choice for most partitions (possibly even was a default).
>
> -brian
Yes, that's because SuSE houses some key developers of ReiserFS and thus can
support ReiserFS better than other FS's (I guess). And it is a quite stable
and good FS, IMHO (although I prefer ext3).
C'ya,
Marc
--
Marc Haisenko
Systemspezialist
Webport IT-Services GmbH
mailto: haisenko@webport.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Subversion on various Linux file systems performance test
Posted by Brian Denny <br...@briandenny.net>.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 02:36:50PM -0800, Brandon Ehle wrote:
>
> There are lots of filesystems, I just tried to include the default ones. I just didn't know that
> any distros had ReiserFS in the default kernel.
>
I am pretty sure that the last time I installed SuSE, it not only
included ReiserFS, but gave the impression (in the installer) that
it was a good choice for most partitions (possibly even was a default).
-brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Subversion on various Linux file systems performance test
Posted by Brandon Ehle <az...@yahoo.com>.
--- Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Brandon Ehle wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote:
> >
> >> Brandon Ehle wrote:
> >>
> >>> Here is the results of my Subversion benchmark running checkout with
> >>> the working copy and repository located on various file systems.
> [...]
> >>> http://subversion.kicks-ass.org/svn-fs-bench/
> >>
> >> Interesting. I'm using ReiserFS 3.6.9 on kernel 2.4.21 (SuSE 9); it's
> >> a shame you don't have that combination. I am surprised to see
> [...]
> >
> > If you have a link to the kernel source that you use (hopefully not 400
> > hundreds patchs that I'll manually have to apply because I'm not running
> > Suse), I'll give it a whirl and see how the 2.4 ReiserFS performance
> > stacks up.
>
> I don't care about any difference between the exact versions of our 2.4 kernels (2.4.21 + SuSE
> patches, and 2.4.22). What I meant was that your page doesn't include results for ReiserFS on
> kernel 2.4.X. If you are building from source then presumably you have the source for both
> ReiserFS 3.X and kernel 2.4.X, or if not you probably know better than I do where to find them.
>
> Thanks for the offer, but there's no need to go to extra trouble on my account. I imagine you
> would already have measured Reiser and/or XFS on 2.4 if it was easy to do so.
>
There are lots of filesystems, I just tried to include the default ones. I just didn't know that
any distros had ReiserFS in the default kernel.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Subversion on various Linux file systems performance test
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Brandon Ehle wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>
>> Brandon Ehle wrote:
>>
>>> Here is the results of my Subversion benchmark running checkout with
>>> the working copy and repository located on various file systems.
[...]
>>> http://subversion.kicks-ass.org/svn-fs-bench/
>>
>> Interesting. I'm using ReiserFS 3.6.9 on kernel 2.4.21 (SuSE 9); it's
>> a shame you don't have that combination. I am surprised to see
[...]
>
> If you have a link to the kernel source that you use (hopefully not 400
> hundreds patchs that I'll manually have to apply because I'm not running
> Suse), I'll give it a whirl and see how the 2.4 ReiserFS performance
> stacks up.
I don't care about any difference between the exact versions of our 2.4 kernels (2.4.21 + SuSE patches, and 2.4.22). What I meant was that your page doesn't include results for ReiserFS on kernel 2.4.X. If you are building from source then presumably you have the source for both ReiserFS 3.X and kernel 2.4.X, or if not you probably know better than I do where to find them.
Thanks for the offer, but there's no need to go to extra trouble on my account. I imagine you would already have measured Reiser and/or XFS on 2.4 if it was easy to do so.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Subversion on various Linux file systems performance test
Posted by Brandon Ehle <az...@yahoo.com>.
Julian Foad wrote:
> Brandon Ehle wrote:
>
>> Here is the results of my Subversion benchmark running checkout with
>> the working copy and repository located on various file systems.
>>
>> The major points that I've gleamed from this test.
>>
>> * Linux 2.6 will provide a fast host for Subversion repositories when
>> its ready.
>> * JFS, FAT32, & ReiserFS make poor working copy hosts (client side).
>> * All of the file systems performed well for hosting the repository
>> (server side).
>> * The version of ReiserFS used in this test is 3.6. I would like to
>> repeat this test with Reiser4 when it starts merging into the kernel.
>>
>> http://subversion.kicks-ass.org/svn-fs-bench/
>
>
> Interesting. I'm using ReiserFS 3.6.9 on kernel 2.4.21 (SuSE 9); it's
> a shame you don't have that combination. I am surprised to see
> ReiserFS performing so badly for a WC, but I see that FAT32 is also
> much slower for a WC on kernel 2.6.test9 than it was on kernel 2.4
> (and yet much faster for the server), so maybe ResiserFS is not too
> bad on kernel 2.4.
>
> I don't know how far advanced the kernel 2.6 is. Is it possible that
> it will yet be "tweaked" or "fixed" so that the performance on FAT32
> WCs (and hopefully ReiserFS) is not so much worse than 2.4 was?
>
> Did you repeat these tests and check that there was not significant
> variation due to cacheing etc.?
>
I umounted and remounted all respective file systems between tests,
which I'm told (and seems to work), will effectively blow out away and
cached files.
I'm not really sure if any development effort was focused on the version
of ReiserFS that is in 2.6 or if most of the development effort went
into making Reiser4. Assuming the later is the case, we should see
massively different results with that test. It could be something as
simple as the default mkfs options that are in the 2.6 kernel haven't
been tweaked yet, or they have been tweaked to provide the best server
performance. ReiserFS takes second in the 2.6 repository test behind
EXT3 for the repository performance.
If you have a link to the kernel source that you use (hopefully not 400
hundreds patchs that I'll manually have to apply because I'm not running
Suse), I'll give it a whirl and see how the 2.4 ReiserFS performance
stacks up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Subversion on various Linux file systems performance test
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Brandon Ehle wrote:
> Here is the results of my Subversion benchmark running checkout with the
> working copy and repository located on various file systems.
>
> The major points that I've gleamed from this test.
>
> * Linux 2.6 will provide a fast host for Subversion repositories when
> its ready.
> * JFS, FAT32, & ReiserFS make poor working copy hosts (client side).
> * All of the file systems performed well for hosting the repository
> (server side).
> * The version of ReiserFS used in this test is 3.6. I would like to
> repeat this test with Reiser4 when it starts merging into the kernel.
>
> http://subversion.kicks-ass.org/svn-fs-bench/
Interesting. I'm using ReiserFS 3.6.9 on kernel 2.4.21 (SuSE 9); it's a shame you don't have that combination. I am surprised to see ReiserFS performing so badly for a WC, but I see that FAT32 is also much slower for a WC on kernel 2.6.test9 than it was on kernel 2.4 (and yet much faster for the server), so maybe ResiserFS is not too bad on kernel 2.4.
I don't know how far advanced the kernel 2.6 is. Is it possible that it will yet be "tweaked" or "fixed" so that the performance on FAT32 WCs (and hopefully ReiserFS) is not so much worse than 2.4 was?
Did you repeat these tests and check that there was not significant variation due to cacheing etc.?
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Subversion on various Linux file systems performance test
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Brandon Ehle wrote:
> Here is the results of my Subversion benchmark running checkout with the
> working copy and repository located on various file systems.
>
> The major points that I've gleamed from this test.
>
> * Linux 2.6 will provide a fast host for Subversion repositories when
> its ready.
> * JFS, FAT32, & ReiserFS make poor working copy hosts (client side).
> * All of the file systems performed well for hosting the repository
> (server side).
> * The version of ReiserFS used in this test is 3.6. I would like to
> repeat this test with Reiser4 when it starts merging into the kernel.
>
> http://subversion.kicks-ass.org/svn-fs-bench/
Interesting. I'm using ReiserFS 3.6.9 on kernel 2.4.21 (SuSE 9); it's a shame you don't have that combination. I am surprised to see ReiserFS performing so badly for a WC, but I see that FAT32 is also much slower for a WC on kernel 2.6.test9 than it was on kernel 2.4 (and yet much faster for the server), so maybe ResiserFS is not too bad on kernel 2.4.
I don't know how far advanced the kernel 2.6 is. Is it possible that it will yet be "tweaked" or "fixed" so that the performance on FAT32 WCs (and hopefully ReiserFS) is not so much worse than 2.4 was?
Did you repeat these tests and check that there was not significant variation due to cacheing etc.?
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org