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:	Wed, 13 May 2015 21:09:58 +0200
From:	Martin Steigerwald <martin@...htvoll.de>
To:	Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
Cc:	David Lang <david@...g.hm>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Howard Chu <hyc@...as.com>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, tux3@...3.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	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?)

Am Dienstag, 12. Mai 2015, 18:26:28 schrieb Daniel Phillips:
> On 05/12/2015 03:35 PM, David Lang wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 May 2015, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >> On 05/12/2015 02:30 PM, David Lang wrote:
> >>> You need to get out of the mindset that Ted and Dave are Enemies that
> >>> you need to overcome, they are friendly competitors, not Enemies.
> >> 
> >> You are wrong about Dave These are not the words of any friend:
> >>   "I don't think I'm alone in my suspicion that there was something
> >>   stinky about your numbers." -- Dave Chinner
> >
> > 
> >
> > you are looking for offense. That just means that something is wrong
> > with them, not that they were deliberatly falsified.
> 
> I am not mistaken. Dave made sure to eliminate any doubt about
> what he meant. He said "Oh, so nicely contrived. But terribly
> obvious now that I've found it" among other things.

Daniel, what are you trying to achieve here?

I thought you wanted to create interest for your filesystem and acceptance 
for merging it.

What I see you are actually creating tough is something different.

Is what you see after you send your mails really what you want to see? If 
not… why not? And if you seek change, where can you create change?

I really like to see Tux3 inside the kernel for easier testing, yet I also 
see that the way you, in your oppinion, "defend" it, does not seem to move 
that goal any closer, quite the opposite. It triggers polarity and 
resistance.

I believe it to be more productive to work together with the people who will 
decide about what goes into the kernel and the people whose oppinions are 
respected by them, instead of against them.

"Assume good faith" can help here. No amount of accusing people of bad 
intention will change them. The only thing you have the power to change is 
your approach. You absolutely and ultimately do not have the power to change 
other people. You can´t force Tux3 in by sheer willpower or attacking 
people.

On any account for anyone discussing here: I believe that any personal 
attacks, counter-attacks or "you are wrong" kind of speech will not help to 
move this discussion out of the circling it seems to be in at the moment.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
--
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/