# Benchmarks: default (niofs) vs memory mapped (mmapfs) **URL:** https://discuss.elastic.co/t/benchmarks-default-niofs-vs-memory-mapped-mmapfs/13118 **Category:** Elasticsearch **Created:** [August 8, 2013, 5:51am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/benchmarks-default-niofs-vs-memory-mapped-mmapfs/13118 "2013-08-08T05:51:04Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 2
### Author: ![jprante](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/jprante/32/44941_2.png) [@jprante](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/jprante) #### Post date: [August 8, 2013, 8:42am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/benchmarks-default-niofs-vs-memory-mapped-mmapfs/13118/2 "2013-08-08T08:42:50Z")
Correct. The Lucene index file sizes should exceed available RAM by far and indexing should be very active to generate a lot of new segment files to see any effect of mmapfs. Jörg On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Tinou Bao [tinou.bao@gmail.com](mailto:tinou.bao@gmail.com) wrote: > Maybe I need to run it when the index size is greater than physical > memory, to see how paging and file caches behave. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com](mailto:elasticsearch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com). For more options, visit [https://groups.google.com/groups/opt\_out](https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out). --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/benchmarks-default-niofs-vs-memory-mapped-mmapfs/13118)._