From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: random minor benchmark: Re: Copy 20 tarfiles: ext2 vs (reiser4, unixfile) vs (reiser4,cryptcompress) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:43:56 -0800 Message-ID: <43D9CF3C.9070706@namesys.com> References: <43D7C6BE.1010804@namesys.com> <43D7CA7F.4010502@namesys.com> <20060126153343.GH4311@suse.de> <43D91225.3030605@namesys.com> <20060126185612.GM4311@suse.de> <43D933EB.6080009@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <43D933EB.6080009@namesys.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Edward Shishkin Cc: Jens Axboe , LKML , Reiserfs mail-list Edward Shishkin wrote: > > I guess this is because real compression is going in background > flush, not in sys_write->write_cryptcompress (which just copies > user's data to page cache). So in this case we have something > very similar to ext2. Reiser4 plain write (write_unix_file) is > more complex, and currently we try to reduce its sys time. > > Edward. > > > > Which means that only real time is a meaningful measurement.....