linux-kernel - Re: filesystem benchmarking fun

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 17 May 2007 22:32:02 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
CC:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: filesystem benchmarking fun

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On May 16 2007 10:42, Chris Mason wrote:
>>> For example, I'll pick on xfs for a minute.  compilebench shows the
>>> default FS you get from mkfs.xfs is pretty slow for untarring a bunch of
>>> kernel trees.
>>
>> I suppose you used 'nobarrier'? [ http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/19/33 ]
> 
> Shouldn't that option be renamed to 'corrupt_my_data'?  ;-)

It means "I have real storage with battery backed cache and I'd like 
good performance, please"

-Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/