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]

Date:	Tue, 12 May 2015 15:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Lang <david@...g.hm>
To:	Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
cc:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Howard Chu <hyc@...as.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, tux3@...3.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	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 Tue, 12 May 2015, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> On 05/12/2015 02:30 PM, David Lang wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2015, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>> Phoronix published a headline that identifies Dave Chinner as
>>> someone who takes shots at other projects. Seems pretty much on
>>> the money to me, and it ought to be obvious why he does it.
>>
>> Phoronix turns any correction or criticism into an attack.
>
> Phoronix gets attacked in an unseemly way by a number of people
> in the developer community who should behave better. You are
> doing it yourself, seemingly oblivious to the valuable role that
> the publication plays in our community. Google for filesystem
> benchmarks. Where do you find them? Right. Not to mention the
> Xorg coverage, community issues, etc etc. The last thing we
> need is a monoculture in Linux news, and we are dangerously
> close to that now.

It's on my 'sites to check daily' list, but they have also had some pretty nasty 
errors in their benchmarks, some of which have been pointed out repeatedly over 
the years (doing fsync dependent workloads in situations where one FS actually 
honors the fsyncs and another doesn't is a classic)

> So, how is "EXT4 is not as stable or as well tested as most
> people think" not a cheap shot? By my first hand experience,
> that claim is absurd. Add to that the first hand experience
> of roughly two billion other people. Seems to be a bit self
> serving too, or was that just an accident.

I happen to think that it's correct. It's not that Ext4 isn't tested, but that 
people's expectations of how much it's been tested, and at what scale don't 
match the reality.

>> You need to get out of the mindset that Ted and Dave are Enemies that you need to overcome, they are
>> friendly competitors, not Enemies.
>
> You are wrong about Dave These are not the words of any friend:
>
>   "I don't think I'm alone in my suspicion that there was something
>   stinky about your numbers." -- Dave Chinner

you are looking for offense. That just means that something is wrong with them, 
not that they were deliberatly falsified.

> Basically allegations of cheating. And wrong. Maybe Dave just
> lives in his own dreamworld where everybody is out to get him, so
> he has to attack people he views as competitors first.

you are the one doing the attacking. Please stop. Take a break if needed, and 
then get back to producing software rather than complaining about how everyone 
is out to get you.

David Lang
--
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/