From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: Phoronix article slaming BTRFS Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:17:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20090623151734.GB4379@think> References: <20090623144123.GB19276@think> <20090623145358.GA700@cumulus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Mike Ramsey , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Sander Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090623145358.GA700@cumulus> List-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:53:59PM +0200, Sander wrote: > 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. That's the idea, but every device is different, and they are very complex. Especially for write performance, tuning is a long and complex process...a simple benchmark run where you do three tries and average them isn't going to give you a great picture of drive performance. -chris