| To: | Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:00:33 +1000 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1188659243.4430.8.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Aconex |
| References: | <1188454611.23311.13.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1188457666.24970.94.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070830132002.GA4086@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1188513751.24970.109.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1188659243.4430.8.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | nscott@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 23:07 +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote: > > > Am I reading the thread correctly that even with this message showing > up, I still need to mount with nobarrier explicitly to improve > performance? > No, thats not needed if XFS explicitly says its not using barriers. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] log replay should not overwrite newer ondisk inodes, Vlad Apostolov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: lockdep annotations?, Lachlan McIlroy |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared, Federico Sevilla III |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH] kill probe_* sysctl leftovers, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |