From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265101AbTLCTMu (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:12:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265108AbTLCTMu (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:12:50 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:55562 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265101AbTLCTMt (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:12:49 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: gatekeeper.tmr.com!davidsen From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: XFS for 2.4 Date: 3 Dec 2003 19:01:39 GMT Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Message-ID: References: <20031202002347.GD621@frodo> X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1070478099 19459 192.168.12.62 (3 Dec 2003 19:01:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com Originator: davidsen@gatekeeper.tmr.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article , Marcelo Tosatti wrote: | A development tree is much different from a stable tree. You cant just | simply backport generic VFS changes just because everybody agreed with | them on the development tree. | | My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much better". | Its much faster, much cleaner. Yes, a development tree is much different than a stable tree, and even though the number has gone to 2.6, it's very much a development tree, in that it's still being used by the same people, and probably not getting a lot of new testing. Stability is unlikely to be production quality until fixes go in for problems in mass testing, which won't happen until it shows up in a vendor release, which won't happen until the vendors test and clean up what they find... In other words, I don't expect it to be "really stable" for six months at least, maybe a year. As for "much faster," let's say that I don't see that on any apples to apples benchmark. If you measure new threading against 2.4 threading there is a significant gain, but for anything else the gains just don't seem to warrant a "much" and there are some regressions shown in other people's data. I think 2.6 has new features, it is more scalable, but other than threads I don't see any huge performance gains. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.