xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: benchmarks (again)

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, reiserfs-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: benchmarks (again)
From: Danny Cox <danscox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 07:51:22 -0400
Organization: Connex Inc
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107130921430.29969-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <995050427.3b4f43bb56ac3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3B54B570.DF35CEDC@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: dcox@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
All,

        One other point regarding benchmarks, it's relevancy depends upon the
environment: when recovering from a "temporal power anomaly" [;-)] an
XFS mount will usually take less than a second.  Reiser can take
several.

        Admittedly, I'm using Reiser as it exists on SuSE 7.1, and XFS as of
this week's CVS, but an XFS mount was always quick (witnessed personally
when I was helping to track down XFS/RAID5 incompatibilities...several
times...every hour.... ;-).

        Yes, it's not the "normal mode", but when the system's down, and the
users have their noses plastered on the glass staring at your back, that
extra 4 seconds per filesystem can seem an eternity!

-- 
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick 
themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." 
   -- Winston Churchill 

Danny


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>