Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
From: Daniel Phillips <daniel@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 06:15:04 -0700
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Howard Chu <hyc@xxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>, tux3@xxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1431522484.3188.75.camel@gmail.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0

On 05/13/2015 06:08 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 04:31 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>> Third possibility: build from our repository, as Mike did.
> 
> Sorry about that folks.  I've lost all interest, it won't happen again.

Thanks for your valuable contribution. Now we are seeing a steady
of stream of people heading to the repository, after you showed
it could be done.

Regards,

Daniel
--
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

References:
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Dave Chinner
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Daniel Phillips
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Mike Galbraith
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Daniel Phillips
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Mike Galbraith
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Daniel Phillips
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Howard Chu
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Daniel Phillips
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Pavel Machek
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Daniel Phillips
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Pavel Machek
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Daniel Phillips
- Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
  - From: Mike Galbraith

Prev by Date: Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
Next by Date: Re: [fuse-devel] fusermount reports "Device or resource busy" but unmounts it anyway
Previous by thread: Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)
Next by thread: Re: Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Ext4 Filesystem] [Union Filesystem] [Filesystem Testing] [Ceph Users] [Ecryptfs] [AutoFS] [Kernel Newbies] [Share Photos] [Security] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux Cachefs] [Reiser Filesystem] [Linux RAID] [Samba] [Device Mapper] [CEPH Development]