Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

2015-05-12 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Monday, May 11, 2015 10:38:42 PM PDT, Dave Chinner wrote: I think Ted and I are on the same page here. Competitive benchmarks only matter to the people who are trying to sell something. You're trying to sell Tux3, but By same page, do you mean transparently obvious about obstructing

Re: Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?

2015-05-12 Thread Daniel Phillips
Tux3 Report: How fast can we fail? Tux3 now has a preliminary out of space handling algorithm. This might sound like a small thing, but in fact handling out of space reliably and efficiently is really hard, especially for Tux3. We developed an original solution with unusually low overhead in the

Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

2015-05-12 Thread David Lang
On Mon, 11 May 2015, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Monday, May 11, 2015 10:38:42 PM PDT, Dave Chinner wrote: I think Ted and I are on the same page here. Competitive benchmarks only matter to the people who are trying to sell something. You're trying to sell Tux3, but By same page, do you

Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

2015-05-12 Thread Daniel Phillips
On 05/12/2015 11:39 AM, David Lang wrote: On Mon, 11 May 2015, Daniel Phillips wrote: ...it's the mm and core kernel developers that need to review and accept that code *before* we can consider merging tux3. Please do not say we when you know that I am just as much a we as you are. Merging

Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

2015-05-12 Thread David Lang
On Tue, 12 May 2015, Daniel Phillips wrote: On 05/12/2015 02:30 PM, David Lang wrote: On Tue, 12 May 2015, Daniel Phillips wrote: Phoronix published a headline that identifies Dave Chinner as someone who takes shots at other projects. Seems pretty much on the money to me, and it ought to be

Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

2015-05-12 Thread Daniel Phillips
On 05/12/2015 03:35 PM, David Lang wrote: On Tue, 12 May 2015, Daniel Phillips wrote: On 05/12/2015 02:30 PM, David Lang wrote: You need to get out of the mindset that Ted and Dave are Enemies that you need to overcome, they are friendly competitors, not Enemies. You are wrong about Dave

Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

2015-05-12 Thread Pavel Machek
On Mon 2015-05-11 19:34:34, Daniel Phillips wrote: On 05/11/2015 04:17 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:12:23AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: Umm, are you sure. If some areas of disk are faster than others is still true on todays harddrives, the gaps will decrease the

Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

2015-05-12 Thread Daniel Phillips
On 05/12/2015 02:03 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: On Mon 2015-05-11 19:34:34, Daniel Phillips wrote: On 05/11/2015 04:17 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: and another way that people doing competitive benchmarking can screw up and produce misleading numbers. If you think we screwed up or produced

Blurt code in Github

2015-05-12 Thread Elifarley Callado Coelho Cruz
Hi Daniel, I've copied your Blurt code and posted it at https://github.com/*tux3fs* /blurt Also notice that I've created an organization in Github named *tux3fs *(as tux3 was already taken, and tux3fs sounds good to me) to make it easier for people to discover tux3's source code, so maybe you

Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

2015-05-12 Thread Howard Chu
Daniel Phillips wrote: On 05/12/2015 02:03 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: I'd call system with 65 tasks doing heavy fsync load at the some time embarrassingly misconfigured :-). It is nice if your filesystem can stay fast in that case, but... Well, Tux3 wins the fsync race now whether it is 1 task,