On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Mike Ramsey<mikejram...@comcast.net> wrote: > 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.
I seriously doubt Phoronix has anything against btrfs, most likely quite the opposite. My suggestion is either to show where their benchmarks are in err, or come up with better benchmarks that demonstrate btrfs in a more positive light. Its quite possible Phoronix would post updated benchmarks regarding the topic. Wil -- 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
