From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timothy Miller Subject: Re: Filesystem Tests Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:40:05 -0400 Message-ID: <3F319FE5.2090801@techsource.com> References: <3F306858.1040202@mrs.umn.edu> <20030805224152.528f2244.akpm@osdl.org> <3F310B6D.6010608@namesys.com> <3F319146.6080607@techsource.com> <20030806234704.GI21290@matchmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Mike Fedyk Cc: Hans Reiser , Andrew Morton , Grant Miner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Mike Fedyk wrote: > 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. That point was already clear to me. I guess I was rather unclear about MY point. :) I wasn't talking to Hans so much as anyone who might worry about CPU usage for a FS.