From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
Subject: Re: Filesystem Tests
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:47:04 -0700
Message-ID: <20030806234704.GI21290@matchmail.com>
References: <3F306858.1040202@mrs.umn.edu> <20030805224152.528f2244.akpm@osdl.org> <3F310B6D.6010608@namesys.com> <3F319146.6080607@techsource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-15210-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
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3F319146.6080607@techsource.com>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
Cc: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Grant Miner <mine0057@mrs.umn.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com

On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:37:42PM -0400, Timothy Miller wrote:
> 
> 
> Hans Reiser wrote:
> 
> >reiser4 cpu consumption is still dropping rapidly as others and I find 
> >kruft in the code and remove it.  Major kruft remains still.

> Now, if you can manage to make it twice as fast while NOT increasing the 
> CPU usage, well, then that's brilliant, but the fact that ReiserFS uses 
> more CPU doesn't bother me in the least.

Basically he's saying it's faster and still not at its peak effeciency yet
too.