| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <46833078.3070609@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:52:24 -0400 From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> To: sftf <sftf-misc@...l.ru> CC: valerie.clement@...l.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Performance testing results sftf wrote: > Hi! > IMHO this test is not 100% correct. > ext3 | data=writeback > ext4 | data=writeback,extents,delalloc > xfs | defaults is ordered ! > > So you have compared ext's in writeback (which fastest mode) vs xfs in ordered. Actually xfs's default (only) mode is more like writeback than ordered. So that's a fair comparison. I bet it is xfs's barriers that hurt it, though - while they are pretty much required on a single disk with a volatile write cache, I think xfs's barrier implementation hurts it more than barriers for ext* -Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists