Filesystem performance overheads?

Hi all,

Is anyone aware of studies that have been done to measure the performance overheads that result from using a filesystem? We want to know the performance loss that we would suffer using a filesystem like FAT16 on a ramdisk versus using the memory as it is (raw reads and writes to memory, without considering it as a ramdisk with a file system).

As far as I understand the performance loss would be miniscule, especially compared to what the filesystem buys us in convenience. But, still I am looking for some hard facts to back up this claim.

Thanks & regards, Sachin

Reply to
Loading thread data ...

It may be "small" but not "miniscule". For every access you would have to do a context switch and the kernel would have to run just to read data, as opposed to just being able to read it with one instruction and no context switch.


Learn to program using Linux assembly language
Reply to
Jonathan Bartlett

FAT16 (and variants) require walking the FAT chain whenever it is necessary to append, truncate, or seek in a file. Depending on cluster size and file size, that can be quite significant, and result in quite noticeable delays. Additionally, depending on the implementation, it's necessary to only allow one process access to the FAT at a time, in order to prevent corruption.


Reply to
Gene S. Berkowitz

For another take on this topic, you might have a look at this article that compares a database in a ramdisk versus an in-memory database, both on Linux systems.

In-Memory Database Systems

Linux Journal, September 1, 2002

formatting link

Or the proprietary version:

formatting link

Reply to

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.