Slower performance with ext4

[Chan Chung Hang Christopher]

Leonard Chatagnier wrote:
> --- On Fri, 10/30/09, Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> From: Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1 at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4
>> To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
>> Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 7:38 AM
>> Leonard Chatagnier wrote:
>>     
>>> --- On Fri, 10/30/09, Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1 at gmail.com>
>>>       
>> wrote:
>>     
>>>> From: Karl F. Larsen <klarsen1 at gmail.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4
>>>> To: "Ubuntu user technical support, not for
>>>>         
>> general discussions" <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
>>     
>>>> Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 7:05 AM
>>>> Raphael wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Help, after I had clean installed Karmic on my
>>>>>           
>> ext4
>>     
>>>> partition, 
>>>>
>>>> the performance was significantly slower compared
>>>>         
>> to ext3.
>>     
>>>>    Startup was around 7 secs but
>>>>         
>> with ext4 it's now 20
>>     
>>>> secs 
>>>> application
>>>>
>>>>    speeds are also slower.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      If you can document this
>>>>         
>> in a bug report
>>     
>>>> it will help the 
>>>> designers of ext4 to work on their project to
>>>>         
>> speed it up.
>>     
>>>>      
>>>> I have been working on my wife's Windows XP and it
>>>>         
>> is sure
>>     
>>>> lazy coming on. They have an early Microsoft add,
>>>>         
>> and then
>>     
>>>> XP 
>>>> starts to unfold...
>>>>
>>>> Karl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Karl, try reading the link the OP gave.  A bug
>>>       
>> report has already been filed.  Actually it was on data
>> loss as far as I read. 
>>     
>>> Leonard Chatagnier
>>> lenc5570 at sbcglobal.net
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>     I did goto his bug report and the
>> responders seemed to change 
>> it to lost data. In his message he said ext3 was much
>> faster 
>> than ext4.
>>
>>
>>     
> It is a little confusing; subject vs. link.  However, I find Karmic much faster than ext3 on everything except browser surfing but that's not the same issue.

Saying weird things like Karmic (an OS) being faster than ext3 (a 
filesystem) just adds to the confusing.


Just do something like this: http://www.htiweb.inf.br/benchmark/fsbench.htm


For those interested, I have a tarball of fsbench (perl scripts emulated 
delivery to maildirs) if you wish to see filesystem performance when 
used for a mail store.