On Freitag, 29. April 2011 Peter Grandi wrote: > Despite decades of seeing it happen, I keep being astonished by > how many people (some with decades of "experience") just don't > understand IOPS and metadata and commits and caching and who > think "performance" is whatever number they can get with their > clever "benchmarks". Although I understand your arguing, the OP just said that with ext3 the process returns after 22s, while on xfs he has to wait 2m20s to have the command prompt back. That's not a benchmark, but user experience. I'm also surprised by that big difference, and given the numbers are correct I would say ext3 does something "better" here than xfs. I'd guess it's only an effect of caching, and in thruth the disks are still running like crazy in the background. But hey, if I decompress a kernel I'm more happy if it returns after 22s and I can start "make menuconfig", than having to wait 2m20s. The damn thing should write in the background, that doesn't hurt (in this specific case). -- mit freundlichen Grüssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services: Protéger http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee] Tel: +43 660 / 415 6531 // ****** Radiointerview zum Thema Spam ****** // http://www.it-podcast.at/archiv.html#podcast-100716 // // Haus zu verkaufen: http://zmi.at/langegg/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
