diff for duplicates of <20120301145155.GY5054@shiny> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 0b100de..3fbd5f7 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,11 +1,10 @@ On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 03:43:41PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote: > 2012/3/1 Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>: -> > XFS will probably beat btrfs in this test. =A0Their directory index= -es +> > XFS will probably beat btrfs in this test. Their directory indexes > > reflect on disk layout very well. ->=20 +> > True, but not that fast on small files. ->=20 +> > Except the question I've raised in first mail there's a point in all > those action. We are maintaining host that are used for building > software: random access, lot of small files and dirs (always a co), @@ -14,7 +13,7 @@ es > btrfs. Now we're looking for replacement for ext4 as we suffer from > those issue - but we were not aware of that until stepped into this > issue. ->=20 +> > If you would like me to do some specific tests around ext4 and btrfs, > let me know. @@ -29,7 +28,6 @@ said there are a few workarounds. -chris -- -To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i= -n +To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 2621825..c773e81 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -22,12 +22,11 @@ "b\0" "On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 03:43:41PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:\n" "> 2012/3/1 Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>:\n" - "> > XFS will probably beat btrfs in this test. =A0Their directory index=\n" - "es\n" + "> > XFS will probably beat btrfs in this test. \302\240Their directory indexes\n" "> > reflect on disk layout very well.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> True, but not that fast on small files.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> Except the question I've raised in first mail there's a point in all\n" "> those action. We are maintaining host that are used for building\n" "> software: random access, lot of small files and dirs (always a co),\n" @@ -36,7 +35,7 @@ "> btrfs. Now we're looking for replacement for ext4 as we suffer from\n" "> those issue - but we were not aware of that until stepped into this\n" "> issue.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> If you would like me to do some specific tests around ext4 and btrfs,\n" "> let me know.\n" "\n" @@ -51,9 +50,8 @@ "-chris\n" "\n" "--\n" - "To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe linux-ext4\" i=\n" - "n\n" + "To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe linux-ext4\" in\n" "the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org\n" More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -011f31aeb878f57c8c9373390eb3c1d955216b1c8469eaebcf80ec73120e6831 +735db7a10e3490f7a6a2523bfdde00014c21209ad4e83a616c07e9b4a180800c
diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N2/1.txt index 0b100de..bf63ac0 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N2/1.txt @@ -1,11 +1,10 @@ On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 03:43:41PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote: > 2012/3/1 Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>: -> > XFS will probably beat btrfs in this test. =A0Their directory index= -es +> > XFS will probably beat btrfs in this test. Their directory indexes > > reflect on disk layout very well. ->=20 +> > True, but not that fast on small files. ->=20 +> > Except the question I've raised in first mail there's a point in all > those action. We are maintaining host that are used for building > software: random access, lot of small files and dirs (always a co), @@ -14,7 +13,7 @@ es > btrfs. Now we're looking for replacement for ext4 as we suffer from > those issue - but we were not aware of that until stepped into this > issue. ->=20 +> > If you would like me to do some specific tests around ext4 and btrfs, > let me know. @@ -27,9 +26,3 @@ This seeky backup performance is somewhat built into ext4, but as Ted said there are a few workarounds. -chris - --- -To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i= -n -the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org -More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest index 2621825..f711b59 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N2/content_digest @@ -22,12 +22,11 @@ "b\0" "On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 03:43:41PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:\n" "> 2012/3/1 Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>:\n" - "> > XFS will probably beat btrfs in this test. =A0Their directory index=\n" - "es\n" + "> > XFS will probably beat btrfs in this test. \302\240Their directory indexes\n" "> > reflect on disk layout very well.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> True, but not that fast on small files.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> Except the question I've raised in first mail there's a point in all\n" "> those action. We are maintaining host that are used for building\n" "> software: random access, lot of small files and dirs (always a co),\n" @@ -36,7 +35,7 @@ "> btrfs. Now we're looking for replacement for ext4 as we suffer from\n" "> those issue - but we were not aware of that until stepped into this\n" "> issue.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> If you would like me to do some specific tests around ext4 and btrfs,\n" "> let me know.\n" "\n" @@ -48,12 +47,6 @@ "This seeky backup performance is somewhat built into ext4, but as Ted\n" "said there are a few workarounds.\n" "\n" - "-chris\n" - "\n" - "--\n" - "To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe linux-ext4\" i=\n" - "n\n" - "the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org\n" - More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html + -chris -011f31aeb878f57c8c9373390eb3c1d955216b1c8469eaebcf80ec73120e6831 +e763aac13848239dc9ac12b826ca1eb871b1032a13a09c188fcd1e766cda5768
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.