On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:30:19PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > How is this similar? By adding this bit, we removed incentive from a > group of developers that have the means to fix the real issue at hand > (the performance problem with ext4). Thus, it means that they have a work > around that's good enough for them, but the rest of us suffer. That assumes that there **is** a way to claw back the performance loss, and Chris Mason has demonstrated the performance hit exists with xfs as well (950 MB/s vs. 400 MB/s; that's more than a factor of two). Sometimes, you have to make the engineering tradeoffs. That's why we're engineers, for goodness sakes. Sometimes, it's just not possible to square the circle. I don't believe that the technique of forcing people who need that performance to suffer in order to induce them to try to engineer a solution which may or may not exist is really the best or fairest way to go about things. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
