2.5.70 for 4 filesystems
Quoted 5 lines
It's quite surprising that reiserfs is so slow at deletion. In my normal experience reiserfs rm -rf is much faster than anything else (e.g. with a big rm -rf on an ext2 you have a chance to ctrl-c still, on reiserfs no such chance; XFS is really slow at this). Perhaps this is some 2.5 regression? Do you have 2.4 comparison numbers?
Maybe the other filesystems are just catching up :) My experience is reiserfs is amazingly fast at rm -rf.
Here is bonnie++ small file benchmark on reiserfs with more kernels. A couple of notes. You see the number of files was reduced recently. Also the reiserfs notail option was removed based on a suggestion from Hans to benefit bigger file benchmarks.
--------------- Sequential ---------
----- Create ----- ---- Delete ----
files /sec %CPU Eff /sec %CPU Eff
2.4.19-rmap13c 131072 3565 40.7 8766 2212 33.3 6635
2.4.20-jam2 131072 3702 43.3 8543 2148 31.3 6855
2.4.21-pre4-ac3 131072 3372 40.3 8360 2187 31.3 6980
2.4.21-pre4aa1 131072 3612 43.7 8273 2141 31.0 6905
2.5.68 131072 2935 37.3 7861 1787 25.7 6963
2.5.68-mm2 131072 3031 38.3 7906 1776 26.3 6743
2.5.68-mjb2 65536 7652 86.7 8830 4027 56.7 7105
2.5.69 65536 7884 90.3 8727 3244 45.7 7102
2.5.69-bk1 65536 7694 88.0 8743 3419 48.3 7073
2.5.69-mm5 65536 7585 87.0 8719 3538 50.3 7029
2.5.70 65536 7584 86.7 8751 2628 37.3 70382.5.69 was about 20% faster than 2.5.70 on sequential file deletes on reiserfs.
I haven't benchmarked any 2.4 kernels with 65536 files and tails yet.
Signature · 2 lines
Randy Hron http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html