From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id pB76ZDWn048119 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 00:35:13 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D1E6F1D37829 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 22:35:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id sjrbOb2cFbNwp9xL for ; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:35:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 01:35:08 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/12] xfs: compound buffers for directory blocks Message-ID: <20111207063508.GA13931@infradead.org> References: <1323238703-13198-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1323238703-13198-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> 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: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 05:18:11PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > The series passes xfstests on 4k/4k, 4k/512b, 64k/4k and 64k/512b > (dirblksz/fsblksz) configurations without any new regressions, and > survives 100 million inode fs_mark benchmarks on a 17TB filesystem > using 4k/4k, 64k/512b and 64k/512b configurations. Do you have any benchmark numbers showing performance improvements for the large directory block case? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs