XFX Filesystem Results

[hellknight]

Yesterday I installed OpenSUSE 11 (32-bit) on my computer. First of all my computer specs :-
AMD Athlon 4400+ X2 (65nm) w. 1MB L2 Cache
Jetway JM2A-692-GDG with AMD 690G chipset
2 GB DDR2 @ 667 MHz Kingston dual channel RAM
XFX 8600 GT with 512 MB RAM Graphics card
WD 250 GB HDD SATA 2 with 16 MB Buffer
and SONY DRU 835A DVD RW

Now the tests were done on a fresh install. Only the graphics driver of my card were installed. The tasks running during the test were, Firefox, Gedit, YaST and Compiz Fusion

Now here are the results :-

NTFS :-> XFS 4.2 GB disc image - 191 sec
NTFS :-> XFS 770.7 MB multiple PDF files - 29 sec
NTFS :-> XFS 768.3 MB disc image file - 31 sec
FAT32 :-> XFS 700.4 MB movie :- 29 sec
HFS+ :-> XFS 1.1 GB multiple files :- 60 sec
NTFS :-> XFS 7.9 GB mkv file :- 397 sec
FAT32 :-> XFS 7.9 Music files :- 8 m 22sec or 502 sec
DVD :-> XFS 689.3 MB Kubuntu disc image :- 131 sec

Come on Guys.. 20 views and no replies.. kuch to bolo..

[The_Devil_Himself]

Nice!

would you mind doing a NTFS-NTFS,NTFS-XFS,XFS-NTFS,and XFS-XFS of the same file\files so a rough comparison can be made out.

[Faun]

yeah the comparison doesnt show the comparative advantage, please do as Devil said

[hellknight]

you mean to say.. like a 4.2 image from a NTFS-NTFS partitions.. from Linux or from Windows?

I can do all of the above results except XFS-XFS.. i've one whole big "/" partition and no other XFS partition. Will post the result after 10 PM going for dinner now

[Faun]

keep the platform same (linux) but try out all variations of filesystems and in every order.

[hellknight]

Here are the new results :-

NTFS :-> NTFS 4.2 GB ISO Image :- 274 sec (slower by 83 sec)
NTFS :-> NTFS 770.7 multiple PDF files :- 44 sec (slower by 15 sec)
NTFS :-> NTFS 768.3 MB disc image :- 37 sec (slower by 6 sec)
FAT32 :-> NTFS 700.4 MB Movie file :- 24 sec (faster by 5 sec)
NTFS :-> FAT32 700.4 MB Movie file :- 36 sec (slower by 7 sec)
NTFS :-> NTFS 1.1 GB Multiple files :- 68 sec (slower by 8 sec)
NTFS :-> NTFS 7.9 GB mkv file :- 7 min 54 sec or 474 sec (slower by 77 sec)
FAT32 :-> NTFS 7.9 GB music files :- 8 min 54 sec or 534 sec (slower by 32 sec)
NTFS :-> NTFS 7.9 GB music files :- 11 min 40 sec or 700 sec (slower by 198 sec)

I don't have two XFS partitions.. i think hitboxxx has.. ask him to do a simple 700 MB movie, 700 MB disc image and 700 MB multiple file test.. and please post the results..

[Faun]

that means there is a fair advantage when it comes to large files.

I will see where I can use it.

[hellknight]

Hey why don't we ask our Mac friends to do a similar kind of test on their HFS+ partitions (on real Mac ) and could you please explain that what is Online Defragmentation in XFS.. i mean does Linux filesystems need to be defragged?

[it_waaznt_me]

Does it not ..??

An observation on your results : Say if you copy a file (say 1 gb file) from dvd to your hard disk .. So ideally, the operating system will fill it in the largest contiguous block it will find .. Say it found a block of 700 Mb and then a 300mb block .. so your file is stored in fragments .. So now when you are testing the file copying function, the read speed as well as write speed both will matter .. The system has to first find out all the blocks of your file and then find new blocks of space to fill (if you are copying the file) .. So this wont be same everytime for any filesystem ..

[MetalheadGautham]

I remember reading somewhere about XFS performance. Apparently, it has issues while dealing with lots of small files, while it rocks with large files. Exactly the opposite of the fragmentation-infested ReiserFS3.