| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions |
| From: | Geoffrey Wehrman <gwehrman@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:37:37 -0500 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20090904025753.GB7146@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20090902175531.469184575@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090903204940.GB24510@xxxxxxx> <20090904025753.GB7146@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) |
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 12:57:53PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: | Christoph asked me to repeat what I said on #xfs w.r.t the regression. Thank you for the detailed description. All I had was a statement from January 2008, "Barry has completed the memory optimization, but initial testing shows that performance has regressed." That was the last update recorded on Barry's work. | With that in mind, I think the memory usage optimisation is far more | important to the majority of XFS users than the CPU usage regression | it causes as the majority of users don't have RAM-rich environments | to run repair in. I agree. -- Geoffrey Wehrman 651-683-5496 gwehrman@xxxxxxx |
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfs data loss, Passerone, Daniele |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 00/14] repair memory usage reductions, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |