[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5542491F.2000404@phunq.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:24:15 -0700
From: Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
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 04/30/2015 07:33 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Well ok, let's forget bad blood, straw men... and answering my question
> too I suppose. Not having any sexy IO gizmos in my little desktop box,
> I don't care deeply which stomps the other flat on beastly boxen.
I'm with you, especially the forget bad blood part. I did my time in
big storage and I will no doubt do it again, but right now, what I care
about is bringing truth and beauty to small storage, which includes
that spinning rust of yours and also the cheap SSD you are about to
run out and buy.
I hope you caught the bit about how Tux3 is doing really well running
in tmpfs? According to my calculations, that means good things for SSD
performance.
Regards,
Daniel
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists