From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sander <sander@humilis.net>
Subject: Re: Phoronix article slaming BTRFS
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:53:59 +0200
Message-ID: <20090623145358.GA700@cumulus>
References: <loom.20090623T024010-331@post.gmane.org> <20090623144123.GB19276@think>
Reply-To: sander@humilis.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	Mike Ramsey <MikeJRamsey@comcast.net>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090623144123.GB19276@think>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

Chris Mason wrote (ao):
> Jens Axboe tried to reproduce the phoronix results on his ocz drive,
> and generally found that each run was slower than the last regardless
> of which mount options were used. This isn't entirely surprising, but
> it did make it very difficult to nail down good or bad performance.

The performance should stabilize within a handful max fills I believe?

There should be a moment where things don't get more complicated for the
controller I thought.

-- 
Humilis IT Services and Solutions
http://www.humilis.net