Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> >> * buffered write (1GB file), 4KByte write
> > 
> > Ok, f2fs is bit faster on desktop PC and a bit slower on S3. Good.
> > 
> > 
> >> * write + fsync (100MB file), 4KByte write
> > 
> > Ok, random access on VFAT is a lot faster on S3 (and only very
> > a bit on PC). Any idea why results are so different between PC and S3?
> > Does F2FS need significantly more CPU? Does F2FS need significantly
> > more RAM? (Booting PC with low mem= option my answer that).

>  Yes, I think that f2fs really needs more CPU and memory for
> functioning. The f2fs keeps more metadata as VFAT, as I
> understand. Moreover, it manages six active logs at runtime and GC
> can works in background. All of it needs in more CPU power.

Thanks for info.

Out of curiosity, how does F2FS perform on low-end SD cards (compared
to VFAT)? I know Kingstons and similar can have only single group open
for writing... VFAT still works there, does F2FS?

Thanks,
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/