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

Chris Mason
2004-05-19T14:07:44Z

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