Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:36:55 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance |
| |
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
| |