Re: Phoronix article slaming BTRFS

[Wil Reichert <wil.reichert@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Mike Ramsey<MikeJRamsey@comcast.net> w=
rote:
> Jaime sanchez <jskartman <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> They are using 2.6.29.4 kernel, it isn't a bit old??
>>
>> =C2=A0I think that kernel doesn't have the last btrfs updates, and t=
hat it
>> =C2=A0is a very bad work and benchmarks results from phoronix part. =
If u are
>> =C2=A0benchmarking an experimental file system benchmark it with the=
 latest
>> =C2=A0updates =C2=BF? it doesn't have sense.
> [snip]
>
> I agree. =C2=A0It was either a hatchet job or just a poor effort. =C2=
=A0The problem is
> that a lot of people are going to read it and lose interest in btrfs.=
 =C2=A0I was
> disheartened but then the analyst in me said, "Wait, this just can't =
be right.
> A copy-on-write file system has got be screaming!"
>
> So I decided to dig deeper.
>
> It might not be a bad idea to get some counter information out there.=
 =C2=A0It should
> explicitly reference and refute the phoronix article. =C2=A0Tom's Har=
dware
> http://www.tomshardware.com/
> is a reputable place. =C2=A0They would run a fair benchmark and their=
 work would
> carry weight.
>
> BTW, the Sun side of Oracle isn't likely to release ZFS to the Linux =
world
> because they need to preserve a competitive edge for Solaris.
>
> Butters has a future. =C2=A0Believe it.

I seriously doubt Phoronix has anything against btrfs, most likely
quite the opposite.  My suggestion is either to show where their
benchmarks are in err, or come up with better benchmarks that
demonstrate btrfs in a more positive light.  Its quite possible
Phoronix would post updated benchmarks regarding the topic.

Wil
--
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