From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from csamuel.org ([74.50.50.137]:53760 "EHLO csamuel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751425Ab2LDCSK (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2012 21:18:10 -0500 Message-ID: <50BD5D5E.5040601@csamuel.org> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:18:06 +1100 From: Chris Samuel MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sw=E2mi_Petaramesh?= , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Example of BTRFS uglyssima performance : Bitcoin References: <50BC92F6.6050404@petaramesh.org> <20121203120952.GE7289@carfax.org.uk> <50BC9A1A.9030204@petaramesh.org> In-Reply-To: <50BC9A1A.9030204@petaramesh.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/12/12 23:24, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote: > I understand the suggestion from a developper's PoV, but from a > user's that's much too much hassle living ahead of one's distro's > kernel, or using "vanilla" ones. Been there, done that. No more > suffering for me please ;-)) > > I'll have to stick with current Ubuntu kernel, or at least with a > future backport... In that case maybe using an experimental filesystem that is under rapid development might not be a good choice, it might be better to stick to one of the existing stable filesystems instead. Have you benchmarked your workload on other filesystems? cheers, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC