linux-kernel - Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]

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]

Message-ID: <44CE7C31.5090402@gmx.de>
Date:	Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:54:57 +0200
From:	Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@....de>
To:	Adrian Ulrich <reiser4@...nkenlights.ch>
CC:	"Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@....utfsm.cl>, ipso@...ppymail.ca,
	reiser@...esys.com, lkml@...productions.com, jeff@...zik.org,
	tytso@....edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	reiserfs-list@...esys.com
Subject: Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view"
 expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]

Adrian Ulrich wrote:

> See also: http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt
> 
> A quick'n'dirty ZFS-vs-UFS-vs-Reiser3-vs-Reiser4-vs-Ext3 'benchmark'

Whatever Postmark does, this looks pretty besides the point.

Are these actual transactions with the "D"urability guarantee?
3000/s doesn't look too much like you're doing synchronous I/O (else
figures around 70/s perhaps 100/s would be more adequate), and cache
exercise is rather irrelevant for databases that manage real (=valuable)
data...

-- 
Matthias Andree
-
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/