Filesystems: Data Preservation, fsync, and Benchmarks Pt. 2

Jun 02, 2009, 12:33 (0 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Ben Martin)

"As Theodore Ts'o blog advocates using fsync(2) to get around the rename issue on ext4, one would imagine that it performs much better on ext4 than ext3. And that leads us to the second part of the article: benchmarks! What price is there to be paid for fsync(2) in different scenarios on different filesystems.

"I'll test not only ext3 and ext4 but also XFS, JFS and Reiserfs. You will notice two benchmarks for XFS, one with the default options and one with the nobarrier mount option. By default XFS uses block layer write barriers which can make some operations much slower. There is also a barrier mount option for ext3 which is off by default. For ext4 barriers are on by default. Unfortunately I'm unsure if this barrier option is comparing apples with apples across these two filesystems though. As btrfs is still so young I decided to omit it from the benchmarks."

Complete Story

Related Stories:

• The Ext4 Linux file system(May 29, 2009)
• FS_scan: Getting Detailed with Your Data(May 27, 2009)
• Churning Butter(FS): An Interview with Chris Mason(May 14, 2009)
• SystemRescueCd 1.2.0 Has Linux Kernel 2.6.29.3(May 13, 2009)
• ExtremeTech: Sabayon Linux 4.1 Review(May 12, 2009)
• 100 Tests & Counting For Linux Benchmarking(May 06, 2009)
• Setting Up An NFS Server And Client On Debian Lenny(May 01, 2009)
• Solving the ext3 latency problem(May 01, 2009)