Hi Jon,
On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 19:28, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
A change from 1400 seconds (ext3) to 1583 (reiser4) strikes me as more than noise.
I didn't state the results are just noise, just that when testing the file system specifically doing this with a CPU intensive task the signal/noise ratio will suffer.
However
Reiser4 is a CPU-heavy filesystem - by admission of its own developers. So its performance will certainly suffer, relative to lighter filesystems, when executing a CPU-intensive, filesystem-intensive task.
I hadn't considered reiser4 is much more CPU intensive than ext3, which indeed makes the distinction between CPU and fs intensive less clear, and speaks for your approach. That's the trouble with benchmarking, you have to know what you want to test. And it's important to make such considerations explicit when publishing results.
Leonard.