From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n84DkA98211688 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:46:21 -0500 Received: from goalpost.americas.sgi.com (goalpost.americas.sgi.com [128.162.232.54]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA65304064 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 06:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:37:37 -0500 From: Geoffrey Wehrman Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions Message-ID: <20090904133737.GD12052@sgi.com> References: <20090902175531.469184575@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090903204940.GB24510@sgi.com> <20090904025753.GB7146@discord.disaster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090904025753.GB7146@discord.disaster> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 12:57:53PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: | Christoph asked me to repeat what I said on #xfs w.r.t the regression. Thank you for the detailed description. All I had was a statement from January 2008, "Barry has completed the memory optimization, but initial testing shows that performance has regressed." That was the last update recorded on Barry's work. | With that in mind, I think the memory usage optimisation is far more | important to the majority of XFS users than the CPU usage regression | it causes as the majority of users don't have RAM-rich environments | to run repair in. I agree. -- Geoffrey Wehrman 651-683-5496 gwehrman@sgi.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs