From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: Linux I/O subsystem performance (was: linuxcon 2010...) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:55:22 -0600 Message-ID: <20100824145522.GQ12892@parisc-linux.org> References: <4C701E08.2020005@vlnb.net> <1282423398.3015.39.camel@mulgrave.site> <1282508953.3042.102.camel@mulgrave.site> <4C727BEB.9020100@scalableinformatics.com> <20100824072557.GK2804@reaktio.net> <4C73DA91.9040101@vlnb.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C73DA91.9040101@vlnb.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Vladislav Bolkhovitin Cc: Pasi K?rkk?inen , Chetan Loke , Bart Van Assche , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Bottomley , scst-devel List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:43:29PM +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: > Also it looks very suspicious why nobody even tried to match that > Microsoft/Intel record, even Intel itself who closely works with Linux > community in the storage area and could do it using the same hardware. You seem to be under the impression that "Intel" is some monolithic entity. Despite working with six different storage & performance groups within Intel, I have no idea what record you're referring to, nor what hardware it was accomplished with. Even if I did, I wouldn't know which group within Intel to contact to see if they still have the setup. Then I'd have to convince them that it's in their interest to try to replicate this on Linux. And I'd have to be prepared to sink a considerable quantity of my time into it ... which I don't have. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."