in reply to BerkeleyDB vs. Linux file system

Some interesting results, me thinks: Writing is exorbitant costly, reading is nearly equivalent (looking at the wallclocks real secs are a somewhat different matter ;-).

System: P4 2.4GHz, SuSE 8.1, perl 5.8.0 (Edit:512MB)

Benchmark: timing 100 iterations of berkeley write, file write... berkeley write: 23 wallclock secs (12.55 usr + 9.56 sys = 22.11 CPU) +@ 4.52/s (n=100) file write: 59 wallclock secs (11.78 usr + 44.22 sys = 56.00 CPU) @ 1 +.79/s (n=100) Rate file write berkeley write file write 1.79/s -- -61% berkeley write 4.52/s 153% -- Benchmark: timing 100 iterations of berkeley read, file read... berkeley read: 8 wallclock secs ( 3.70 usr + 4.78 sys = 8.48 CPU) @ + 11.79/s (n=100) file read: 7 wallclock secs ( 3.00 usr + 3.15 sys = 6.15 CPU) @ 16 +.26/s (n=100) Rate berkeley read file read berkeley read 11.8/s -- -27% file read 16.3/s 38% --

regards,
tomte


Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: BerkeleyDB vs. Linux file system reiserFS
by perrin (Chancellor) on Mar 18, 2003 at 15:59 UTC
    I've heard that Reiser does well with many small files, so maybe it would hold up better on 50 byte files than my ext3 system does.