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

[Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de>]

Am Donnerstag, 30. April 2015, 10:57:10 schrieb Theodore Ts'o:
> One of the problems is that it's *hard* to get good benchmarking
> numbers that take into account file system aging and measure how well
> the free space has been fragmented over time.  Most of the benchmark
> results that I've seen do a really lousy job at this, and the vast
> majority don't even try.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I find head-to-head "competitions"
> between file systems to be not very helpful for anything other than
> benchmarketing.  It's almost certain that the benchmark won't be
> "fair" in some way, and it doesn't really matter whether the person
> doing the benchmark was doing it with malice aforethought, or was just
> incompetent and didn't understand the issues --- or did understand the
> issues and didn't really care, because what they _really_ wanted to do
> was to market their file system.

I agree to that.

One benchmark measure one thing, and if its with the fresh filesystem, it 
does so with a fresh filesystem.

Benchmarks that aiming at how to test an aged filesystem are much more 
expensive in time and resources needed, unless one reuses and aged 
filesystem image again and again.

Thanks for your explainations, Ted,

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7