From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Zarochentsev Subject: Re: Again, some bad Reiser4 (ReiserFS) 'reviews' Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:22:09 +0400 Message-ID: <20040715182209.GK21140@backtop.namesys.com> References: <200407150025.30908.Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de> <40F6C548.7030805@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40F6C548.7030805@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Hans Reiser Cc: Dieter N?tzel , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, rufus@hackish.org On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 10:56:24AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > Dieter N?tzel 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. > > zam, would you confirm that the fibration plugin is our current default > plugin? "dot-o fibrate" is default. > Hans -- Alex.