3 ms·
I meant to say you've not benchmarked disk access, and we have no idea what each filesystem is actually doing. Caching performance is "nice", but it says nothin
by weddpros 13y ago
I meant to say you've not benchmarked disk access, and we have no idea what each filesystem is actually doing.
Caching performance is "nice", but it says nothing about the actual performance we'd get in real use. Maybe the "slow" fs just exhibits less aggressive caching, which might prove just as efficient depending on the workload.
It's definitely interesting to note the huge differences, but I'd really like to see how it goes in "real" conditions...
- hnriot 13y agohow are these not real conditions?
- buster 13y agoI don't know what you are doing in real conditions but i am for sure not only running everything in my RAM (that'd be great, i wouldn't even need a harddisk anymore). The benchmark needs to be revised to account for the VM caching or it's just useless. Or rename it to "benchmark of memory access and caching algorithms".