From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Nelson Subject: Re: Again, some bad Reiser4 (ReiserFS) 'reviews' Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 12:09:22 -0500 Message-ID: <410E7542.70602@andrew.cmu.edu> References: <200407150025.30908.Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de> <40F6C548.7030805@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <40F6C548.7030805@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: Hans Reiser Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Dieter N=FCtzel wrote: > http://rufus.hackish.org/wiki/2.6FileSystemBenchmarks > > Greetings, > Dieter Hi, sorry for the late reply, but I've been on vacation for the past=20 month. When I originally ran these benchmarks a few months ago I had=20 posted them to the LKML and this list, but it was linked to a different=20 website (which has been renamed a few times now). After a good amount=20 of discussion on the LKML, this benchmark was actually what prompted=20 Hans "to add a nice little optimization for compiles to Reiser4 as a=20 result of thinking about compile benchmarks" (sorting by the last=20 character). Anyway, I'm going to be building a new system in around 1=20 months time which will be the perfect opportunity to rerun all these=20 benchmarks. If anyone has suggestions on how to make the test better,=20 feel free to pass them along. The thing I'd be most interested in=20 testing is if there's a way to flush file caches to see how much of a=20 difference having the file cached in ram compared to reading off disk makes. -Peter Nelson