XFS, ReiserFS, And ext3 Comparisons

[Condon Thomas A KPWA]

Net Llama! wrote:
> Last week there was a thread on the Linux kernel mailng list comparing
> XFS, reiserFS & ext3:
> http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/latest.html#13
> 
> looks like ext3 came in last, resierFS first, XFS in the middle.

Could someone help me interpret these numbers?

********************************************
StPeter:/mnt/part1# time cp -rf /usr/src/kernel-source-2.4.20 ./

real 1m3.501s
user 0m0.140s
sys 0m2.680s

StPeter:/mnt/part2# time cp -rf /usr/src/kernel-source-2.4.20 ./

real 0m3.696s *************** so fast...
user 0m0.110s
sys 0m3.570s

StPeter:/mnt/part3# time cp -rf /usr/src/kernel-source-2.4.20 ./

real 1m29.697s
user 0m0.090s
sys 0m2.490s
********************************************

It is my understanding that "real" is the total time it took to process the
command, "user" is the time it took to process the user's portion of the
command, and "sys" is the time it took to process the system's portion of
the command.  I *thought* that "real" was affected by what *else* the cpu
might be doing at the time, so that the true measure was "user" + "sys" =
processing time used.  Am I wrong in this?


In Harmony's Way, and In A Chord,

Tom  :-})

Thomas A. Condon
Barbershop Bass Singer
Registered Linux User #154358
A Jester Unemployed