On Sonntag, 1. Mai 2011 Peter Grandi wrote: > But when one sees comical "performance" comparisons without > even cache flushing, explaining the difference between a > performance problem and different safety/speed tradeoffs seems > a bit wasted. Before people run aroung peeing each other on the leg, I'd like to bring this back from "benchmarking" to "user experience". The OP didn't benchmark, he just noticed that on ext3 unpacking the kernel source was much faster than on XFS, on his machine. Step back from "benchmarking", and just read the words, forget about benchmarks. With ext3, the user can start "make menuconfig" much earlier than with xfs. In this specific case, the user is not interested if it's safer, or already on disk, or running in the background. The user want's to do his work, period. And that is - for this specific case on his hardware (and probably on every hardware?) - much quicker with ext3 than with xfs. I'd be interested why it is like that, and if there is anything to do about it in xfs to become faster, or as-fast-as ext3, for 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
