From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n84HPo1f225931 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:26:01 -0500 Received: from mailsrv5.zmi.at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id F20F042A3CF for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv5.zmi.at (mailsrv5.zmi.at [212.69.164.54]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id AqPWFdWAtapbA9kd for ; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.i.zmi.at (h081217106033.dyn.cm.kabsi.at [81.217.106.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mailsrv2.i.zmi.at", Issuer "power4u.zmi.at" (not verified)) by mailsrv5.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90A736CF for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:25:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from saturn.localnet (saturn.i.zmi.at [10.72.27.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailsrv.i.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0FB840015E for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:25:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Monnerie Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:24:35 +0200 References: <20090902175531.469184575@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090904133737.GD12052@sgi.com> <20090904145109.GA8351@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20090904145109.GA8351@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200909041924.35987@zmi.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Freitag 04 September 2009 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > In my testing I haven't seen big differences in performance, it > sometimes got a bit faster and sometimes a bit slower. =A0I will send > out a more detailed performace report in a few days. >>From what I've read, it should be faster on a machine with 2GB RAM and = 10TB storage, while it's maybe slower on a 64GB RAM machine with a 1TB = xfs storage. Given that disks grow faster than RAM sizes, and that with = virtualization a single machine typically has not too much RAM these = days, I guess with the patches speed will improve overall. mfg zmi -- = // Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at // Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 .network.your.ideas. // PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg --import" // Fingerprint: AC19 F9D5 36ED CD8A EF38 500E CE14 91F7 1C12 09B4 // Keyserver: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net Key-ID: 1C1209B4 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs