Jaime sanchez <jskartman <at> gmail.com> writes: > > They are using 2.6.29.4 kernel, it isn't a bit old?? > > I think that kernel doesn't have the last btrfs updates, and that it > is a very bad work and benchmarks results from phoronix part. If u are > benchmarking an experimental file system benchmark it with the latest > updates ¿? it doesn't have sense. [snip]
I agree. It was either a hatchet job or just a poor effort. The problem is that a lot of people are going to read it and lose interest in btrfs. I was disheartened but then the analyst in me said, "Wait, this just can't be right. A copy-on-write file system has got be screaming!" So I decided to dig deeper. It might not be a bad idea to get some counter information out there. It should explicitly reference and refute the phoronix article. Tom's Hardware http://www.tomshardware.com/ is a reputable place. They would run a fair benchmark and their work would carry weight. BTW, the Sun side of Oracle isn't likely to release ZFS to the Linux world because they need to preserve a competitive edge for Solaris. Butters has a future. Believe it. --Mike Ramsey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
