linux-kernel - Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

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, 30 Apr 2015 06:40:33 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	tux3@...3.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Subject: Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent
 performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 14:12 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> Btrfs appears to optimize tiny files by storing them in its big btree,
> the equivalent of our itree, and Tux3 doesn't do that yet, so we are a
> bit hobbled for a make load.

That's not a build load, it's a git load.  btrfs beat all others at the
various git/quilt things I tried (since that's what I do lots of in real
life), but tux3 looked quite good too.

As Dave noted though, an orchard produces oodles of apples over its
lifetime, these shiny new apples may lose luster over time ;-)

	-Mike

--
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/