[Top] [All Lists]

Fw: Re: XFS mkfs/mount options

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Fw: Re: XFS mkfs/mount options
From: Mark <musicman529@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=olE9+g4I4R5+FNFwppU1s6gwLh10iRlvV47wgRUj+CcN/N5UC7N8hGbIunT28wZZCLC1Z9QmXYP+tACh1EMAiyCzXYgyYw42dMtjhAhPR/uVaeuL+dvjD8oIEg7GdD+xWsMsR6bxxm0TvQoKmh6hGaYC5Gbb7toNIGhMQ1Wt5A8=;
Reply-to: MusicMan529@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
To all,

It appears I have found a defect in my testing. Generally, the procedure has 
been something like:

create filesystem
mount filesystem and set owner/group
run benchmark
alter some condition (CPU speed or IRQ routing)
re-run benchmark
compare results

The second run is contaminated by caching effects from the first run. This 
accounts for the roughly 5% speedup I saw after enabling explicit IRQ routing. 
Once I corrected this oversight, the difference became statistical noise.

My apologies to all for this red herring.


"What better place to find oneself than
 on the streets of one's home village?"
      --Capt. Jean-Luc Picard, "Family"

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>