Wil Reichert <wil.reichert <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Mike Ramsey<MikeJRamsey <at>
> comcast.net> wrote:
> > Jaime sanchez <jskartman <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >>
[snip]
>
> I seriously doubt Phoronix has anything against btrfs, most likely
> quite the opposite.
I gave two possibilities,
1. Hatchet job i.e. malice with forethought
2. Just a poor effort
I am not necessary favoring option 1. Regarding option 2, to err
is human.
Just admit it, correct it, and then don't repeat it.
> My suggestion is either to show where their
> benchmarks are in err,
I did this, didn't I?
1. Vertex with write cache enabled; disabled would have seen a
2X improvement.
2. Error in libata
> or come up with better benchmarks that
> demonstrate btrfs in a more positive light.
That is the ticket. I suggest that someone contact Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/
And arrange to work with them to perform an honest benchmark.
Head to head with Ext4 would work for me. :-)
> Its quite possible
> Phoronix would post updated benchmarks regarding the topic.
They should either repeat the benchmark and do it right, or print a r
etraction.
BTW, thank you for your reply. I hope that none of the above sounded
too harsh. The article was IMO damaging and needs to be countered.
--Mike Ramsey
[snip]
--
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
