er version.
>
> I made the link to the phoronix test. They may not be the best, but this is
> all I found. If you find any better test, don't hesitate to add them.
>
> disclaimer: I'm not a btrfs developer, just a entusiast that follows
> the developement.
>
> Jb ben
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 filesystem benchmark it with the lastest
updaets ¿? it doesn't have sense.
-
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 filesystem benchmark it with the lastest
updaets ¿? it doesn't have sens
Hi list,
I am tired of "syntetic" benchmarks and i wrote a script to totally
automate benchmarking for various file system (command line option)
through the same partition, collect the data and show results in a
nice way.
There are 4 basic benchmarks performed, copy, compress, uncompress and
dele
