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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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