From: Valerie Clement Subject: Re: Test results for ext4 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:07:08 +0200 Message-ID: <4843F07C.5020306@bull.net> References: <48402253.8040407@bull.net> <484024EF.7080304@redhat.com> <4840297C.7030809@bull.net> <48402A1F.8080108@redhat.com> <48402B49.7000805@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: ext4 development To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from ecfrec.frec.bull.fr ([129.183.4.8]:59798 "EHLO ecfrec.frec.bull.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752611AbYFBNH3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:07:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48402B49.7000805@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eric Sandeen wrote: > Oh, also for completeness can you specify which xfsprogs you used? > There were some recent changes made which affect the fs geometry, and > might affect the results. So it would be good to fully specify. OK, to do. To be honest, I didn't update them recently. >=20 > Also why no fragmentation results for xfs or ext3? I only forgot to do it. But I didn't want to make a full comparaison of ext4 to xfs and ext3. When testing the latest ext4 patch queue with a new kernel, I'd got sometimes kernel crashes, or system hang, or bad performance. Running the same tests on ext3 and xfs for which the code is more stable I think gives me reference numbers for my tests. In this way, I found in the past a problem in the IO scheduler. Val=E9rie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html