From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nightrow Subject: Re: Phoronix article slaming BTRFS Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:44:43 +0200 Message-ID: <4A41148B.80509@gmail.com> References: <2d23818a0906231030t40adf82dh26e037b515c6aa0b@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Jaime sanchez Return-path: In-Reply-To: <2d23818a0906231030t40adf82dh26e037b515c6aa0b@mail.gmail.com> List-ID: If you look here : http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page in=20 the benchmarking section, you will notice that the test was made more=20 than one month ago. I also mentionned, as said by chris on phoronix phorums, that kernel=20 starting from 2.6.30 should be faster. I think we should expect them to run it periodicaly against newer versi= on. I made the link to the phoronix test. They may not be the best, but thi= s=20 is all I found. If you find any better test, don't hesitate to add them= =2E 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 ar= e > benchmarking an experimental filesystem benchmark it with the lastest > updaets =BF? it doesn't have sense. > > =20 -- 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