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 o7CJ5Hur236103 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:05:17 -0500 Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D8C0B4AFF15 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.164.54]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id sAeC3VQSqmF3JIEk for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:05:38 -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 mailsrv14.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFBBD17F for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:05:36 +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 53231401C2E for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:05:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Monnerie Subject: Re: observed significant performance improvement using "delaylog" in Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:05:35 +0200 References: <201008121346.30760.eye.of.the.8eholder@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201008121346.30760.eye.of.the.8eholder@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201008122105.35787@zmi.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0526552923721286178==" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com --===============0526552923721286178== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2301956.zxzAzIfnxN"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart2301956.zxzAzIfnxN Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Donnerstag, 12. August 2010 Khelben Blackstaff wrote: > Here is my post with the results of the benchmark. > http://lordkhelben.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/xfs-delayed-logging/ =20 Wow, BTRFS rocks. I guess I'll use it once it's released. But I'm=20 stunned that XFS is that much slower than ext4 in many tests. =2D-=20 mit freundlichen Gr=FCssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee] Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 ****** Aktuelles Radiointerview! ****** http://www.it-podcast.at/aktuelle-sendung.html // Wir haben im Moment zwei H=E4user zu verkaufen: // http://zmi.at/langegg/ // http://zmi.at/haus2009/ --nextPart2301956.zxzAzIfnxN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkxkRf8ACgkQzhSR9xwSCbRmrwCfRXRm0LhqVC4RUcP8bR7XrAww Q/kAn27cR9q6j4+JDZu9OJ0mg+dYEvw5 =en7I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2301956.zxzAzIfnxN-- --===============0526552923721286178== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs --===============0526552923721286178==--