On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 01:55:26PM -0800, Christian Kujau wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 at 14:50, jim owens wrote:
> > And I don't even care about comparing 2 filesystems, I only care about
> > timing 2 versions of code in the single filesystem I am working on,
> > and forgetting about hardware cach
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 11:00:59AM -0500, jim owens wrote:
> Christian Kujau wrote:
>
> > I was using "sync" to make sure that the data "should" be on the disks
>
> Good, but not good enough for many tests... info sync
>
> CONFORMING TO
>POSIX.2
>
> NOTES
>On Linux, sync is on
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 08:22:38AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> Dudes, sync() doesn't flush the fs cache, you have to unmount for that.
> Once upon a time Linux had an ioctl() to flush the fs buffers, I used
> it in lmbench.
>
> ioctl(fd, BLKFLSBUF, 0);
>
> No idea if that is still supp
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 05:52:34PM -0800, Christian Kujau wrote:
>
> Well, I do "sync" after each operation, so the data should be on disk, but
> that doesn't mean it'll clear the filesystem buffers - but this doesn't
> happen that often in the real world too. Also, all filesystem were tested
>
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 02:46:31AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > [1] http://samba.org/ftp/tridge/dbench/README
>
> Was not able to resist to write a small notice, what no matter what, but
> whatever benchmark is running, it _does_ show system behaviour in one
> or another condition. And when
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 01:05:39PM +, Peter Grandi wrote:
> > I've had the chance to use a testsystem here and couldn't
> > resist
>
> Unfortunately there seems to be an overproduction of rather
> meaningless file system "benchmarks"...
One of the problems is that very few people are interest
