From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (mail.app.aconex.com [203.89.192.138]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l82MxG4p019923 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2007 15:59:18 -0700 Subject: Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared From: Nathan Scott Reply-To: nscott@aconex.com In-Reply-To: <1188659243.4430.8.camel@auctoritas.fs3.ph> References: <1188454611.23311.13.camel@toonses.gghcwest.com> <1188457666.24970.94.camel@edge.yarra.acx> <20070830132002.GA4086@infradead.org> <1188513751.24970.109.camel@edge.yarra.acx> <1188659243.4430.8.camel@auctoritas.fs3.ph> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:00:33 +1000 Message-Id: <1188774034.24970.123.camel@edge.yarra.acx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Federico Sevilla III Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 23:07 +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote: > > > Am I reading the thread correctly that even with this message showing > up, I still need to mount with nobarrier explicitly to improve > performance? > No, thats not needed if XFS explicitly says its not using barriers. cheers. -- Nathan