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 q6UMB9vd097107 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:11:09 -0500 Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id A2HaV4KMC1je2Zsg for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:11:05 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: followup on benchmarks of an xfs embedded system (without rt section) Message-ID: <20120730221105.GK2877@dastard> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Jason Newton Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 03:35:40AM -0700, Jason Newton wrote: > I've attached my benchmark program but I use alot of boost c++ with a > little internal set of libraries... so you can see what I"m doing but it > likely won't compile for you. I'll also mention that boost is a very low > overhead (if any) over all the normal system calls one would use (verified > by reading sourcecode in use). I'd suggest rewriting it so we can compile and run it. If I can reproduce the problem, I can at least understand where the latency is coming from. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs