From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
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 14:07:21 +0200
Message-ID: <1430395641.3180.94.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>
	 <b10acd39-85d6-44f8-bbad-ac393bd8504e@phunq.net>
	 <1430325763.19371.41.camel@gmail.com> <1430334326.7360.25.camel@gmail.com>
	 <20150430002008.GY15810@dastard>
	 <b1c4315e-f7d5-4081-957b-e58feff4a64b@phunq.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tux3@tux3.org,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
To: Daniel Phillips <daniel@phunq.net>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <b1c4315e-f7d5-4081-957b-e58feff4a64b@phunq.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 04:14 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> Lovely sounding argument, but it is wrong because Tux3 still beats XFS
> even with seek time factored out of the equation.

Hm.  Do you have big-storage comparison numbers to back that?  I'm no
storage guy (waiting for holographic crystal arrays to obsolete all this
crap;), but Dave's big-storage guy words made sense to me.

	-Mike