Re: Phoronix article slaming BTRFS

Jaime sanchez
2009-06-23T18:27:50Z

My fault then, i thought it was a recent article (the discussion
appeared recently on the list) , i read it all except the date. I
didn't see it was from 29 may. I apologize.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:44 PM, nightrow<nightrow@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you look here : http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page i=
n the
> benchmarking section, you will notice that the test was made more tha=
n one
> month ago.
> I also mentionned, as said by chris on phoronix phorums, that kernel
> starting from 2.6.30 should be faster.
>
> I think we should expect them to run it periodicaly against newer ver=
sion.
>
> I made the link to the phoronix test. They may not be the best, but t=
his is
> all I found. If you find any better test, don't hesitate to add them.
>
> disclaimer: I'm not a btrfs developer, just a entusiast that follows
> the developement.
>
> Jb benoit.
>
> Jaime sanchez wrote :
>>
>> They are using 2.6.29.4 kernel, it isn't a bit old??
>>
>> I think that kernel doesn't have the last btrfs updates, and that it
>> is a very bad work and benchmarks results from phoronix part. If u a=
re
>> benchmarking an experimental filesystem benchmark it with the lastes=
t
>> updaets =BF? it doesn't have sense.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" =
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html