> -----Original Message----- > From: tytso@xxxxxxx [mailto:tytso@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 4:14 PM > To: Daniel Taylor > Cc: Eric Sandeen; amir73il@xxxxxxxxx; linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: inconsistent file placement > > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 03:15:00PM -0700, Daniel Taylor wrote: > > > > It is an unfortunate fact of life that simplistic benchmarks often > > drive sales. This product will be a consumer NAS and when our > > internal runs of the common NAS benchmarks get inconsistent results, > > it creates a lot of concern. > > Out of curiosity, what *are* the "common NAS benchmarks" in use today, > and who chooses them? The benchmarks are chosen by individual reviewers (probably looking over each others' shoulders). "smallnetbuilder.com" is a fairly good example. FWIW: 1) NASPT, PC only 2) IOzone, Mac & PC 3) IOmeter, PC BTW, the simple test sequence was trying to distill something that our in-house performance tester was seeing in some SATA traces. It is NOT one of the "real" benchmarks. > Speaking of fallocate.... if this is a NAS box than the file is > probably written using CIFS, right? Are you using a modern version of > Samba? Currently, we're on 3.2.5 of smdb, but that's because the later versions work less well with ext3. We will be testing them with ext4 now that we see the other options it offers. Soon as I can get the fallocate utility cross-built, there are some experiments that I want to run, but those will take a couple of days. Thanks again for all of your help. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
