Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751656AbWHARDK (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:03:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932515AbWHARDK (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:03:10 -0400 Received: from 63-162-81-179.lisco.net ([63.162.81.179]:42707 "EHLO grunt.slaphack.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751661AbWHARDJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:03:09 -0400 Message-ID: <44CF8949.707@slaphack.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:03:05 -0500 From: David Masover User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Macintosh/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Theodore Tso , David Lang , David Masover , tdwebste2@yahoo.com, Nate Diller , Adrian Ulrich , "Horst H. von Brand" , ipso@snappymail.ca, reiser@namesys.com, lkml@lpbproductions.com, jeff@garzik.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Subject: Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view"expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion] References: <20060801034726.58097.qmail@web51311.mail.yahoo.com> <44CED777.5080308@slaphack.com> <20060801064837.GB1987@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20060801064837.GB1987@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1219 Lines: 27 Theodore Tso wrote: > Ah, but as soon as the repacker thread runs continuously, then you > lose all or most of the claimed advantage of "wandering logs". [...] > So instead of a write-write overhead, you end up with a > write-read-write overhead. This would tend to suggest that the repacker should not run constantly, but also that while it's running, performance could be almost as good as ext3. > But of course, people tend to disable the repacker when doing > benchmarks because they're trying to play the "my filesystem/database > has bigger performance numbers than yours" game.... So you run your own benchmarks, I'll run mine... Benchmarks for everyone! I'd especially like to see what performance is like with the repacker not running, and during the repack. If performance during a repack is comparable to ext3, I think we win, although we have to amend that statement to "My filesystem/database has the same or bigger perfomance numbers than yours." - 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/