On 20/02/17 15:46, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Adrian Hunter
> wrote:
>
>> MQ is not better - it is just different.
>
> Well it is better in the sense that it has active maintainers and is
> not scheduled
> for depreciation.
>
>> Because
On 20/02/17 13:04, Ziji Hu wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> On 2017/2/20 16:03, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 17/02/17 15:22, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Ziji Hu wrote:
>
>>> Ulf describes it: we want to switch MMC/SD to MQ.
>>>
>>> To me, there are two
Hi Adrian,
On 2017/2/20 16:03, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 17/02/17 15:22, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Ziji Hu wrote:
>> Ulf describes it: we want to switch MMC/SD to MQ.
>>
>> To me, there are two reasons for that (no secret agendas...)
>>
>> 1.
On 17/02/17 15:22, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Ziji Hu wrote:
>
>> I would like to suggest that you should try the multiple thread
>> test mode of iozone, since you are testing *Multi* Queue.
>
> Good point. This target has only 2
Hi Linus,
On 2017/2/17 21:22, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Ziji Hu wrote:
>
>> I would like to suggest that you should try the multiple thread
>> test mode of iozone, since you are testing *Multi* Queue.
>
> Good point. This
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Ziji Hu wrote:
> I would like to suggest that you should try the multiple thread
> test mode of iozone, since you are testing *Multi* Queue.
Good point. This target has only 2 CPUs but still, maybe it performs!
>
[...]
>
> I would like to suggest that you should try the multiple thread
> test mode of iozone, since you are testing *Multi* Queue.
Yes. That seems reasonable.
However, the most important part here is the comparison between the
different code bases.
>
> Besides, it