Comparison testing: { FSFS, BDB } x { 1.5.4, trunk }
From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:10:43 -0400
I did a little bit of simple comparison testing between FSFS and BDB in
Here are the highlights (percentages are ballpark estimates).
In trunk, FSFS:
is significantly slower (30%) for writes operations. I have no idea why.
is a bit faster for reads (20%).
showed no meaningful disk usage changes. But I'm pretty sure this is
In trunk, Berkeley DB:
is significantly faster (50%) for write operations. This is almost
is significantly slower (300%) for read operations. Distance to
showed significant improvement in disk usage (20% savings) in trunk.
In all things except disk usage (now in trunk), FSFS remains a clear winner
Attached are the script I used and a spreadsheet with the actual findings.
-- C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
#!/bin/sh
for svnadmin in \
|
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.
This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.