On lui a posé cette question sur le site:
"Was this test done with any mount options such as biosize? Biosize=13 has yielded a great improvement on my system for sure!"
No, I didn't use that mount option. But I'm going to test it as soon as possible :-D'
I'd like to repeat this benchmark more "seriously", with at least 5 or 10 samples (not 3) and with the latest kernel available.
That's because I used RedHat's 2.4.2 kernel patched by SGI, and Alan Cox says that it doesn't have all important ReiserFS patches applied. I think I'll use some 2.4.4-ac or 2.4.5-pre kernel... if SGI's patches work with them :-?
Il a utilisé un noyau patché par SGI, pas optimisé pour ReiserFS. Il annonce un test plus complet. Comme le dis quelqu'un dans le site, il faut comparer sur la lecture/écriture de plusieurs fichiers à la fois.
# Commentaire de l'auteur du test
Posté par Anonyme . En réponse à la dépêche Comparatif de XFS, ReiserFS, Ext2FS et Fat32. Évalué à 0.
"Was this test done with any mount options such as biosize? Biosize=13 has yielded a great improvement on my system for sure!"
No, I didn't use that mount option. But I'm going to test it as soon as possible :-D'
I'd like to repeat this benchmark more "seriously", with at least 5 or 10 samples (not 3) and with the latest kernel available.
That's because I used RedHat's 2.4.2 kernel patched by SGI, and Alan Cox says that it doesn't have all important ReiserFS patches applied. I think I'll use some 2.4.4-ac or 2.4.5-pre kernel... if SGI's patches work with them :-?
Il a utilisé un noyau patché par SGI, pas optimisé pour ReiserFS. Il annonce un test plus complet. Comme le dis quelqu'un dans le site, il faut comparer sur la lecture/écriture de plusieurs fichiers à la fois.