From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Andree Subject: Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion] Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:54:57 +0200 Message-ID: <44CE7C31.5090402@gmx.de> References: <20060731175958.1626513b.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> <200607311918.k6VJIqTN011066@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> <20060731225734.ecf5eb4d.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060731225734.ecf5eb4d.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Adrian Ulrich Cc: "Horst H. von Brand" , ipso@snappymail.ca, reiser@namesys.com, lkml@lpbproductions.com, jeff@garzik.org, tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Adrian Ulrich wrote: > See also: http://spam.workaround.ch/dull/postmark.txt > > A quick'n'dirty ZFS-vs-UFS-vs-Reiser3-vs-Reiser4-vs-Ext3 'benchmark' Whatever Postmark does, this looks pretty besides the point. Are these actual transactions with the "D"urability guarantee? 3000/s doesn't look too much like you're doing synchronous I/O (else figures around 70/s perhaps 100/s would be more adequate), and cache exercise is rather irrelevant for databases that manage real (=valuable) data... -- Matthias Andree