From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m5I7K3TX020806 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:20:04 -0700 Received: from web34506.mail.mud.yahoo.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with SMTP id 4F86ECE50DB for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web34506.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web34506.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.163.178.172]) by cuda.sgi.com with SMTP id H5hhsmkFzYmkbDHx for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:21:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Reply-To: MusicMan529@yahoo.com Subject: Fw: Re: XFS mkfs/mount options MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <521591.99815.qm@web34506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: xfs@oss.sgi.com To all, It appears I have found a defect in my testing. Generally, the procedure has been something like: create filesystem mount filesystem and set owner/group run benchmark alter some condition (CPU speed or IRQ routing) re-run benchmark compare results The second run is contaminated by caching effects from the first run. This accounts for the roughly 5% speedup I saw after enabling explicit IRQ routing. Once I corrected this oversight, the difference became statistical noise. My apologies to all for this red herring. -- Mark "What better place to find oneself than on the streets of one's home village?" --Capt. Jean-Luc Picard, "Family"