From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o8HKI5rd089446 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:18:05 -0500 Received: from hermes2.dur.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 81C7CE07BAF for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes2.dur.ac.uk (hermes2.dur.ac.uk [129.234.248.2]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id YrOrBO83wDw0sU1R for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.phyip3.dur.ac.uk (mail.phyip3.dur.ac.uk [129.234.186.130]) by hermes2.dur.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id o8HKIO0T022694 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:18:33 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.phyip3.dur.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C987D8000D for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:18:24 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.phyip3.dur.ac.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.phyip3.dur.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h0lMncryixup for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:18:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from ty.sabi.co.UK (O1.PhyIP3.Dur.ac.UK [129.234.186.1]) by mail.phyip3.dur.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05D68000B for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:18:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from from [127.0.0.1] (helo=tree.ty.sabi.co.uk) by ty.sabi.co.UK with esmtp(Exim 4.63 #1) id 1OwgcL-0002wo-IJ for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:29:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <19603.49533.447686.734866@tree.ty.sabi.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:29:01 +0100 Subject: Re: LWN.net article: creating 1 billion files -> Tests we did In-Reply-To: <4C9291C3.7000709@hardwarefreak.com> References: <201008191312.49346@zmi.at> <20100916121350.3ab30ca5@harpe.intellique.com> <4C9291C3.7000709@hardwarefreak.com> From: pg@xfs2.for.sabi.co.UK (Peter Grandi) List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Linux XFS [ ... useless run of something misrepresented as a test ... ] >> Test run on a dual Opteron quad core, 16 GB RAM, kernel >> 2.6.32.11 x86_64... > This is a test of storage system performance, and you left out > the storage array specs? By doing so it seems you're stating > the underlying storage is not relevant to the results. [ ... ] This is only one of the several aspects of the waste of time that was misrepresented as a storage test, even if it is one of the funniest. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs