From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Ramsey Subject: Re: Phoronix article slaming BTRFS Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:27:06 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <2d23818a0906231026g6e4567fdv8eda3d6c4828ef4d@mail.gmail.com> <2d23818a0906231028t43d97e64t901610ca18e749d0@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: List-ID: Jaime sanchez 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