From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pysiak Satriani <pysiak.satriani@wp.pl>
Subject: Re: Small ZFS / Reiser4 / Ext 'benchmark'
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:42:57 +0100
Message-ID: <1976788721.20060203184257@wp.pl>
References: <20060202225943.47804036.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch>
 <20060202225422.GT11642@schatzie.adilger.int> <43E2F4AE.6070902@namesys.com>
Reply-To: Pysiak Satriani <pysiak.satriani@wp.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-28002-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <43E2F4AE.6070902@namesys.com>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
Cc: Adrian Ulrich <reiser4@blinkenlights.ch>, reiserfs-list@namesys.com

Hans,

> I am surprised that Reiser4 does so well, and I would be interested in
> knowing more details of exactly what the test does.  Our tests show
> reiser4 not doing THAT much better, so  you must be doing something
> different from our tests. 
Unfortunately LKML was not CC'd even once in this thread so your mail
that CC'd lkml looked very strange because it was a reply to messages
not seen on the list :-(

If you had the intention of letting folks outside reiserfs-ml know, you
might have missed it. Maybe Grzegorz Kulewski's suggestion about
Adrian doing repetetive benchmarks and posting them regularly is
quite valid and sensible.

-- 
Best regards,
Pysiak