Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753593Ab3EKSfr (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 May 2013 14:35:47 -0400 Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com ([209.85.220.179]:37830 "EHLO mail-vc0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752242Ab3EKSfp (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 May 2013 14:35:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20130510045049.GU24635@dastard> Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 11:35:45 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Tux3 Report: Faster than tmpfs, what? From: james northrup To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Dave Chinner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tux3@tux3.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 849 Lines: 18 also interesting information... Study of 2,047 papers on PubMed finds that two-thirds of retracted papers were down to scientific misconduct, not error On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Thanks for the catch - I should indeed have noted that "modified > dbench" was used for this benchmark, thus amplifying Tux3's advantage > in delete performance. This literary oversight does not make the > results any less interesting: we beat Tmpfs on that particular load. > Beating tmpfs at anything is worthy of note. Obviously, all three -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/