Re: Again, some bad Reiser4 (ReiserFS) 'reviews'

[Redeeman <redeeman@metanurb.dk>]

On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 10:56 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Dieter Nützel wrote:
> 
> >http://rufus.hackish.org/wiki/2.6FileSystemBenchmarks
> >
> >Greetings,
> >	Dieter
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> I think he has an fsync intensive workload, which reiser4 is not good at 
> because we haven't bothered with it yet, and we care more about maturing 
> the atomic functionality.  I have no idea what ccache does with the fs.  
> Does it use fsync?
> 
> How he got tar to be slow is hard to understand, I don't remember seeing 
> a slow tar using reiser4, does anyone else?  I am guessing he created 
> the tarball using ext2, and didn't know that readdir order matters and 
> affects the tarball, and that he should create it on the filesystem 
> being benchmarked.  Maybe the tarball ordering also affects subsequent 
> compiles, I don't know.
wow, i didnt know i had to create on the filesystem i benchmark, i
always just created on what i had, and that werent reiser4, but still
reiser4 proved to be the fastest (alot faster than the other)

> 
> zam, would you confirm that the fibration plugin is our current default 
> plugin?
> 
> Hans
> 
-- 
Redeeman <redeeman@metanurb.dk>