Short bio: Computer Scientist, FOSS supporter (read more)
Tux Machines (TM)-specific
In our previous Part 1 of this series we looked at the IOzone performance for ext3, ext4, and reiser4 using larger size record lengths (1MB, 4MB, 8MB, 16MB). The results are interesting because they unexpectedly showed some trends in performance that are independent of the file system. These observations are important if you take the results from a single record size run of IOzone and apply it to other record sizes (which you shouldn’t do).
In this article the number of file systems is extended to add most of the major file systems in Linux, even the experimental ones. This article adds ext2, jfs, xfs, btrfs, and reiserfs. As with the metadata benchmarks the purpose of this study is not to compare file systems and pick the “best” one (insert your definition of “best”). Rather, this study is an exploration of the performance of various Linux file systems using a single throughput benchmark. So the focus of this article is to explore how Linux file systems perform when IOzone is the benchmark.