From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp12.smtpout.orange.fr ([80.12.242.134]:44247 "EHLO
	smtp.smtpout.orange.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752505Ab2JNLY3 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 14 Oct 2012 07:24:29 -0400
Message-ID: <507AA0E7.30706@petaramesh.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:24:23 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sw=E2mi_Petaramesh?= <swami@petaramesh.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "BTRFS, Linux" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: inode_cache
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

Hi there,

On a performance standpoint - and on Ubuntu Quantall kernel 3.5.0-17 -
is it advisable to mount BTRFS with "inode_cache" ?

Is there any risk or counterpart doing so ?

TIA, kind regards.

-- 
Swâmi Petaramesh <swami@petaramesh.org> http://petaramesh.org PGP 9076E32E
Ne cherchez pas : Je ne suis pas sur Facebook.