Re: Phoronix article slaming BTRFS

[Mike Ramsey <MikeJRamsey@comcast.net>]

Jaime sanchez <jskartman <at> gmail.com> writes:

>=20
> They are using 2.6.29.4 kernel, it isn't a bit old??
>=20
>  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 file system benchmark it with the lates=
t
>  updates =C2=BF? it doesn't have sense.
[snip]=20

I agree.  It was either a hatchet job or just a poor effort.  The probl=
em is
that a lot of people are going to read it and lose interest in btrfs.  =
I was
disheartened but then the analyst in me said, "Wait, this just can't be=
 right.=20
A copy-on-write file system has got be screaming!" =20

So I decided to dig deeper. =20

It might not be a bad idea to get some counter information out there.  =
It should
explicitly reference and refute the phoronix article.  Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/
is a reputable place.  They would run a fair benchmark and their work w=
ould
carry weight.

BTW, the Sun side of Oracle isn't likely to release ZFS to the Linux wo=
rld
because they need to preserve a competitive edge for Solaris. =20

Butters has a future.  Believe it.

--Mike Ramsey






--
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