Re: Again, some bad Reiser4 (ReiserFS) 'reviews'

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Redeeman wrote:

>On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 10:56 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
>  
>
>>Dieter Nützel 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.
>>    
>>
>wow, i didnt know i had to create on the filesystem i benchmark, i
>always just created on what i had, and that werent reiser4, but still
>reiser4 proved to be the fastest (alot faster than the other)
>  
>
;-)

Maybe somebody should try to reproduce his benchmark.  Maybe he either 
made more errors than I guessed at, or, quite likely, he found a 
weakness that we should look into.

fsync we suck at though.  Maybe in 6 months we can look at optimizing it 
(I know that fsync matters in the real world, I just don't have spare 
resources at the moment).

>  
>
>>zam, would you confirm that the fibration plugin is our current default 
>>plugin?
>>
>>Hans
>>
>>    
>>