On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 02:47:35PM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> tux3: > >> Operation Count AvgLat MaxLat > >> ---------------------------------------- > >> NTCreateX 1477980 0.003 12.944 > > .... > >> ReadX 2316653 0.002 0.499 > >> LockX 4812 0.002 0.207 > >> UnlockX 4812 0.001 0.221 > >> Throughput 1546.81 MB/sec 1 clients 1 procs max_latency=12.950 ms > > > > Hmmm... No "Flush" operations. Gotcha - you've removed the data > > integrity operations from the benchmark. > > Right. Because tux3 is not implementing fsync() yet. So, I did > > grep -v Flush /usr/share/dbench/client.txt > client2.txt > > Why is it important for comparing? Because nobody could reproduce your results without working that out. You didn't disclose that you'd made these changes, and that makes it extremely misleading as to what the results mean. Given the headline-grab nature of it, it's deceptive at best. I don't care how fast tux3 is - I care about being able to reproduce other people's results. Hence if you are going to report benchmark results comparing filesystems then you need to tell everyone exactly what you've tweaked and why, from the hardware all the way up to the benchmark config. Work on how *you* report *your* results - don't let Daniel turn them into some silly marketing fluff that tries to grab headlines. -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
