On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:08:28PM -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> > Still, it would probably simpler to not try to assign
> > DX_HASH_SIPHASH24 to be 6, and to leave better comments about how the
> > hash values are used.
>
> Is that "not try" supposed to be in there?
Sorry, typo. Yes, it would be better to assign DX_HASH_SIPHASH24 to
be 6, and not to assign the code points 3, 4, and 5 just to be safe.
> BTW, initial benchmarking isn't showing much. I created a 4 GB file
> syste, on a RAM disk with -i 1024, and tried the following:
> DEV=/tmp/FS
> MNT=/mnt
(I assume you're using tmpfs.) There would be less overhead if you
actually used a real ramdisk, i.e., /dev/ram0, which might reduce some
of the variance and increase the percentage of the difference, but
yeah, it's not that surprising that we're not seeing much difference.
- Ted
--
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
