Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?) | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:07:21 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 04:14 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Lovely sounding argument, but it is wrong because Tux3 still beats XFS > even with seek time factored out of the equation.
Hm. Do you have big-storage comparison numbers to back that? I'm no storage guy (waiting for holographic crystal arrays to obsolete all this crap;), but Dave's big-storage guy words made sense to me.
-Mike
| |