From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <970893-15443>; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:14:35 -0400 Received: from [207.181.251.162] ([207.181.251.162]:14451 "EHLO bitmover.com" ident: "root") by vger.rutgers.edu with ESMTP id <970880-15443>; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:14:28 -0400 Message-Id: <199807181734.KAA08309@bitmover.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu From: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Subject: Re: [lm@bitmover.com: Linux performance vs IRIX performance] Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 10:34:01 -0600 Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu : > doesn't have, etc, etc. None the less, it is likely that Linux on the same : > hardware would be about 3 times faster than IRIX. : : Larry did not say what kind of FS he used on the Irix box (XFS or EFS), but : for me it looks like a typical sync metadata/async metadata comparison. It was XFS. The other way to be sure, I think, is that if it was a meta update problem only, then the system times shouldn't be dramatically different. Disk I/O is not that expensive. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html