Re: 1352 NUL bytes at the end of a page?

Steven Cole
2004-05-19T14:46:25Z

On May 19, 2004, at 8:08 AM, Chris Mason wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 09:59, Steven Cole wrote:
>
>> I went back through the archive to make sure, and since I didn't
>> specify where I did the timed tests, those timing tests would have
>> been done on my /home partition, which is reiserfs v3.
>>
>> Since I was using different partitions for ext3 and reiserfs on
>> /dev/hda, a direct comparison between ext3 and reiserfs wouldn't
>> be completely fair, but a "watching the paint dry" observation
>> seemed to indicate that reiserfs was significantly faster for this
>> load. I did press my backup disk into service for this testing,
>> to eliminate the possibility that this was due to a finicky disk,
>> and I have a 3.9 G partition which I've formatted first reiserfs,
>> then ext3, so I could do some fair tests between reiserfs and
>> ext3 on that disk. But I think the results are already known;
>> reiserfs opens a can of whoopass for this kind of load.
>
> While this is the kind of thing I like to hear, it wasn't really what I
> was asking ;-)
>
> There was a regression between a 2.6.3 mandrake kernel and 2.6.6, was
> this regression just for reiserfs or was it for all filesystems?
>
> If just reiserfs, it might be from the data=ordered and logging changes
> that went into 2.6.6, so I'm quite interested in figuring things out.
>
> -chris

2nd reply:

It was just reiserfs, and I'm preparing to repeat some of those timing
tests on one of my test boxes at work, a dual P-III with IDE in this
case. I can test both reiserfs v3 and ext3 and 2.6.3-4mdk (smp version)
versus other kernel versions and whatever reiserfs mount options you
want to try. I have SCSI boxes too if needed.

Steven