From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jaime sanchez Subject: Re: Phoronix article slaming BTRFS Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:27:50 +0200 Message-ID: <2d23818a0906231127y30e93f2fm41e20eea90e9e55b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d23818a0906231030t40adf82dh26e037b515c6aa0b@mail.gmail.com> <4A41148B.80509@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: nightrow Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4A41148B.80509@gmail.com> List-ID: 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 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