Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:05:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:05:55 -0500 Received: from mail021.syd.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.20.161]:44001 "EHLO mail021.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:05:49 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Con Kolivas To: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 01:15:06 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: linux kernel mailing list References: <200302010020.34119.conman@kolivas.net> <200302010040.49141.conman@kolivas.net> <3E3A8077.9050409@namesys.com> In-Reply-To: <3E3A8077.9050409@namesys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200302010115.06955.conman@kolivas.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 12:56 am, Hans Reiser wrote: > Try running with the -E option for gcc, it might be less CPU intensive, > and thus a better FS benchmark. > > What do you think? To be honest I have no idea. I'm not trying to find the filesystem with the greatest throughput, but which utilises the least resources while maintaining throughput. Perhaps we're looking for different things, but I'm open to any suggestions; but they'll have to wait for my waking hours, and for others' comments. These benchmarks are run manually for every stage as they are way out of the scope of the design of contest and therefore time consuming. - 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/