Re: [report] Unixbench shell1 performance regression

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 08:29:46AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On 2025/3/18 04:43, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 08:25:16AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > > If they think the results are not good, they might ask us to move away
> > > of XFS filesystem.  It's not what I could do anything, you know.
> > 
> > If they think there is a filesystem better suited to their
> > requirements than XFS, then they are free to make that decision
> > themselves. We can point out that their selection metrics are
> > irrelevant to their actual workload, but in my experience this just
> > makes the people running the selection trial more convinced they are
> > right and they still make a poor decision....
> 
> The problem is not simple like this, what we'd like is to provide
> a unique cloud image for users to use.  It's impossible for us to
> provide two images for two filesystems.  But Unixbench is still
> important for many users, so either we still to XFS or switch back
> to EXT4.

Well, that means your company has the motivation to try to improve
the XFS code, doesn't it? If they won't put up the resources to
address issues that affect their customers, then why should anyone
else do that work for them for free?

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com