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]

Message-ID: <1430395641.3180.94.camel@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:07:21 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, 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 Thu, 2015-04-30 at 04:14 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> Lovely sounding argument, but it is wrong because Tux3 still beats XFS
> even with seek time factored out of the equation.

Hm.  Do you have big-storage comparison numbers to back that?  I'm no
storage guy (waiting for holographic crystal arrays to obsolete all this
crap;), but Dave's big-storage guy words made sense to me.

	-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/