From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Weiss Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Tuning scst windows and sw raid5 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:48:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: <201104221608.50195.lukasz.oles@open-e.com> <201104221635.38092.lukasz.oles@open-e.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201104221635.38092.lukasz.oles@open-e.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBPbGXFmw==?= Cc: scst-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:35 AM, =C5=81ukasz Ole=C5=9B wrote: > On Friday 22 of April 2011 16:19:48 you wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:08 AM, =C5=81ukasz Ole=C5=9B wrote: >> Also xfs is much better at dealing with large files than ntfs. =C2=A0= Best >> apple to apples test is going to be on raw unformated partitions > What this test(testing on raw partitions) can tell me? In the end I h= ave to > use filesystem. it'll tell you that scst is being consistent. there will always be differences in filesystem performance, try ext3 on linux and you'll see a huge difference from xfs. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html