From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:40:33 +0200 Message-ID: <1430368833.3180.35.camel@gmail.com> References: <8f886f13-6550-4322-95be-93244ae61045@phunq.net> <1430274071.3363.4.camel@gmail.com> <1906f271-aa23-404b-9776-a4e2bce0c6aa@phunq.net> <1430289213.3693.3.camel@gmail.com> <1430325763.19371.41.camel@gmail.com> <1430334326.7360.25.camel@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tux3@tux3.org, Theodore Ts'o , OGAWA Hirofumi To: Daniel Phillips Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 14:12 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Btrfs appears to optimize tiny files by storing them in its big btree, > the equivalent of our itree, and Tux3 doesn't do that yet, so we are a > bit hobbled for a make load. That's not a build load, it's a git load. btrfs beat all others at the various git/quilt things I tried (since that's what I do lots of in real life), but tux3 looked quite good too. As Dave noted though, an orchard produces oodles of apples over its lifetime, these shiny new apples may lose luster over time ;-) -Mike