Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id f6L3h2S14213 for linux-xfs-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 20:43:02 -0700 Received: from rebel.net.au (IDENT:root@mail.rebel.net.au [203.20.69.66]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id f6L3gxV14194 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 20:43:00 -0700 Received: from rebel.net.au (dialup-7.rebel.net.au [203.20.69.77]) by rebel.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id NAA17730; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:12:35 +0930 Message-ID: <3B58FB27.3C82DDB2@rebel.net.au> Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:16:47 +0930 From: David Lloyd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3-SGI_XFS_1.0.1 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Lord CC: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: You can have a look on this test... References: <200107202142.f6KLgAB10663@jen.americas.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Steve! > Well, they could have made xfs go faster with some mkfs and mount options, > this is usually what happens in benchmarks which just test out of the box > performance. Do you mean: * Well, they were capable of making xfs go faster with some mkfs and mount option but did not OR * they probably did make xfs go faster with some mkfs and mount options ?? Unfortunately could have is very ambiguous :-( DSL -- "The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and to be loved in return." - David Bowie (Nature Boy from Moulin Rouge)